Clinton electors lobbying for EC protest votes? *UPDATE* 29 electors want intel briefing

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, and it won't.

What needs to happen is that the Electors have to be obligated, by law, to vote for the winner of the state for which they are an Elector.

And a 19 year Elector?

Wanting to make a statement?

How stupid is that?

I like this post a lot. My only quibble is that we can't speak in total certainty about the future of our country, let alone the EC.

Thank you.

You are, of course, correct that we cannot say anything about the future with absolute certainty.

However, I think we can all agree that the abolition of the Electoral College would be a very long, drawn out, bitter affair.

And constitutionally, I believe I can say that more likely than not, at least in the immediate future, and by that I mean a considerable length of time, that any attempt to abolish the Electoral College is more likely to fail than to succeed.   

Yep. Thanks for the naunce.
It can get lonely sometimes defending the EC on the internet. You're welcome, fellow EC supporter.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think people might be at least slightly more accepting of the Electoral College if it manifestly represented some sort of identifiable interest other than a 'weighted' version of the popular vote. There might actually be less of a democratic deficit if it were explicitly a proxy for Congress or state governments or something and the system didn't insult people's intelligence by going through the motions of having a nationwide popular election (or 'muh fifty-one separate elections', whatever).

[Mr. Morden]

So 4 Colorado electors are talking about defecting from Clinton?  What if it was 5 (a majority of the state's delegation), and they all voted for the same person (who is neither Clinton nor Trump)?  How would Colorado then be colored on the maps? 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think we can all agree Electoral College is very unlikely to go.

1. Smaller states would strongly oppose the move.
2. Major swing states would oppose the move.
3. At the end of a day both parties probably prefeers to play in current setup (concentrate on swing state) than wage a difficult nationwide campaign.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyway, there's always some speculation of such kind (remember Ron Paul's "ninja electors"), but I believe when I actually see something.

What needs to happen is that the Electors have to be obligated, by law, to vote for the winner of the state for which they are an Elector.

How about retaining the EC with abolishing electors? A winner is just getting assigned number of state electoral votes.

[Mr. Morden]

I think we can all agree Electoral College is very unlikely to go.

1. Smaller states would strongly oppose the move.
2. Major swing states would oppose the move.
3. At the end of a day both parties probably prefeers to play in current setup (concentrate on swing state) than wage a difficult nationwide campaign.

The electoral college will technically remain intact, but the NPVIC would make it irrelevant.  And I don't think it's impossible for it to pass via referendum in enough states where it can't get through the legislature.  It's already been passed via the normal legislative process in states totalling 165 electoral votes, so 105 more to go.

[hopper]

Again the election is over. The Dems are really going out of their out of their way to embarrass themselves.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, and it won't.

What needs to happen is that the Electors have to be obligated, by law, to vote for the winner of the state for which they are an Elector.

And a 19 year Elector?

Wanting to make a statement?

How stupid is that?

I like this post a lot. My only quibble is that we can't speak in total certainty about the future of our country, let alone the EC.

Thank you.

You are, of course, correct that we cannot say anything about the future with absolute certainty.

However, I think we can all agree that the abolition of the Electoral College would be a very long, drawn out, bitter affair.

And constitutionally, I believe I can say that more likely than not, at least in the immediate future, and by that I mean a considerable length of time, that any attempt to abolish the Electoral College is more likely to fail than to succeed.    

Yep. Thanks for the naunce.
It can get lonely sometimes defending the EC on the internet. You're welcome, fellow EC supporter.

Indeed, I am a firm supporter of the Electoral College.

It gives smaller states more say in the election.  

If the election for President was based completely on the popular vote, by far most of the attention from the parties and the candidates would be spent on the large states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey.

The Electoral College system gives more influence to smaller states, and a better balance for Presidential elections.

[Indy Texas]

The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, and it won't.

What needs to happen is that the Electors have to be obligated, by law, to vote for the winner of the state for which they are an Elector.

And a 19 year Elector?

Wanting to make a statement?

How stupid is that?

I like this post a lot. My only quibble is that we can't speak in total certainty about the future of our country, let alone the EC.

Thank you.

You are, of course, correct that we cannot say anything about the future with absolute certainty.

However, I think we can all agree that the abolition of the Electoral College would be a very long, drawn out, bitter affair.

And constitutionally, I believe I can say that more likely than not, at least in the immediate future, and by that I mean a considerable length of time, that any attempt to abolish the Electoral College is more likely to fail than to succeed.    

Yep. Thanks for the naunce.
It can get lonely sometimes defending the EC on the internet. You're welcome, fellow EC supporter.

Indeed, I am a firm supporter of the Electoral College.

It gives smaller states more say in the election.  

If the election for President was based completely on the popular vote, by far most of the attention from the parties and the candidates would be spent on the large states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey.

The Electoral College system gives more influence to smaller states, and a better balance for Presidential elections.

Yes, how dare most of the attention go to the places where most of the people live!

[ApatheticAustrian]

The Electoral College system gives more influence to smaller states, and a better balance for Presidential elections.

not really....

i don't care much about the EC (since the majority of states or politicans seems to prefer it....pick your poison)....but the only question is WHICH states are important.

in fact the EC doesn't give power to small states - but a handful of lucky possible swing states, while the majority of small states gets ignored like the overwhelming majority of all american votes.

on the positive side...now that iowa becomes hard-titanium-R, the ethanol subsidies are going to disappear.....and maybe the "first in the nation" status too.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, and it won't.

What needs to happen is that the Electors have to be obligated, by law, to vote for the winner of the state for which they are an Elector.

And a 19 year Elector?

Wanting to make a statement?

How stupid is that?

I like this post a lot. My only quibble is that we can't speak in total certainty about the future of our country, let alone the EC.

Thank you.

You are, of course, correct that we cannot say anything about the future with absolute certainty.

However, I think we can all agree that the abolition of the Electoral College would be a very long, drawn out, bitter affair.

And constitutionally, I believe I can say that more likely than not, at least in the immediate future, and by that I mean a considerable length of time, that any attempt to abolish the Electoral College is more likely to fail than to succeed.   

Yep. Thanks for the naunce.
It can get lonely sometimes defending the EC on the internet. You're welcome, fellow EC supporter.

Indeed, I am a firm supporter of the Electoral College.

It gives smaller states more say in the election. 

If the election for President was based completely on the popular vote, by far most of the attention from the parties and the candidates would be spent on the large states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey.

The Electoral College system gives more influence to smaller states, and a better balance for Presidential elections.

this is often repeated, but it doesn't really make sense. media markets are generally cheaper per person reached in the smaller states and i can't imagine, e.g. republicans campaigning in san francisco when they could be getting much more of an advantage by campaigning in kentucky

plus i mean- under the current system, california, texas, and new york get zero attention, despite making up over a quarter of the population, so

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So 4 Colorado electors are talking about defecting from Clinton?  What if it was 5 (a majority of the state's delegation), and they all voted for the same person (who is neither Clinton nor Trump)?  How would Colorado then be colored on the maps? 

Probably like Alabama 1960.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Electoral College does not have to be abolished, and it won't.

What needs to happen is that the Electors have to be obligated, by law, to vote for the winner of the state for which they are an Elector.

And a 19 year Elector?

Wanting to make a statement?

How stupid is that?

I like this post a lot. My only quibble is that we can't speak in total certainty about the future of our country, let alone the EC.

Thank you.

You are, of course, correct that we cannot say anything about the future with absolute certainty.

However, I think we can all agree that the abolition of the Electoral College would be a very long, drawn out, bitter affair.

And constitutionally, I believe I can say that more likely than not, at least in the immediate future, and by that I mean a considerable length of time, that any attempt to abolish the Electoral College is more likely to fail than to succeed.    

Yep. Thanks for the naunce.
It can get lonely sometimes defending the EC on the internet. You're welcome, fellow EC supporter.

Indeed, I am a firm supporter of the Electoral College.

It gives smaller states more say in the election.  

If the election for President was based completely on the popular vote, by far most of the attention from the parties and the candidates would be spent on the large states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey.

The Electoral College system gives more influence to smaller states, and a better balance for Presidential elections.

I have a perfect electoral system for you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Unit_System

Just like you've described.

[7,052,770]

Indeed, I am a firm supporter of the Electoral College.

It gives smaller states more say in the election.  

If the election for President was based completely on the popular vote, by far most of the attention from the parties and the candidates would be spent on the large states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey.

The Electoral College system gives more influence to smaller states, and a better balance for Presidential elections.

So? Right now all of the attention goes to a narrow slice of swing states. What's the difference?

[7,052,770]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

eh.

i feel the main effect of that would be to forestall any real reform

[Mr. Morden]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

Unlike the NPVIC though, eliminating electors would actually require a constitutional amendment, right?  Seems highly unlikely that we'll see such an amendment any time soon.  The NPVIC passing seems far more likely to me than an amendment along the lines that you're suggesting.

[Xing]

Maybe if 50 electors vote for Mickey Mouse, that'll send a message about how absurd the electoral college is. But this election has already happened. Discussion about electoral reform should be about the 2020 election, not this one.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah if I was an elector I would vote John Ewards for old times sake

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have said this before, but if you want to be a faithless elector, DON'T FKING SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

This.

If folks want to try this, that's their right.  It's part of the rules of the game.  I'm OK with folks trying, and if they succeeded, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[7,052,770]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

Unlike the NPVIC though, eliminating electors would actually require a constitutional amendment, right?  Seems highly unlikely that we'll see such an amendment any time soon.  The NPVIC passing seems far more likely to me than an amendment along the lines that you're suggesting.

While I guess some Congressmen could vote against such an amendment just out of spite or hate, I can't imagine that an amendment banning faithless electors could possibly fail in Congress, or among the states. How could anyone argue for keeping them in a way that would sway over 1/3 of Congress?

[Mr. Morden]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

Unlike the NPVIC though, eliminating electors would actually require a constitutional amendment, right?  Seems highly unlikely that we'll see such an amendment any time soon.  The NPVIC passing seems far more likely to me than an amendment along the lines that you're suggesting.

While I guess some Congressmen could vote against such an amendment just out of spite or hate, I can't imagine that an amendment banning faithless electors could possibly fail in Congress, or among the states. How could anyone argue for keeping them in a way that would sway over 1/3 of Congress?

I mean it's highly unlikely to pass because of apathy.  Unless/until an elected president is denied the presidency because of faithless electors, hardly anyone will care about it.  So I don't think that many state legislatures are going to bother bringing it up for a vote.

[SteveRogers]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

Unlike the NPVIC though, eliminating electors would actually require a constitutional amendment, right?  Seems highly unlikely that we'll see such an amendment any time soon.  The NPVIC passing seems far more likely to me than an amendment along the lines that you're suggesting.

While I guess some Congressmen could vote against such an amendment just out of spite or hate, I can't imagine that an amendment banning faithless electors could possibly fail in Congress, or among the states. How could anyone argue for keeping them in a way that would sway over 1/3 of Congress?

Perhaps by making the same arguments the founders made when they designed the electoral college as a deliberative body?

[RI]

Texas GOP elector will vote for Kasich over Trump.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Texas GOP elector will vote for Kasich over Trump.

Ugh, I can't stand this "Trump is awful but GWB was great" crap.