Topic: New petition: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

+Anonymous A — 9.7 years ago #45,924

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

Capitalizing on the success of the kratom petition

+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 9.7 years ago, 19 minutes later[T] [B] #500,048

I'm confused
> On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots.
This happens next month
> Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.
Then how do we have the Trump result now?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 9.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #500,049

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
> Then how do we have the Trump result now?
He's currently the president-elect, which means he's not president yet.

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 9.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #500,050

@previous (A)
But how? If Hillary won the popular vote like the petition says and the Electoral College hasn't voted yet, it doesn't make sense.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 9.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #500,051

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
He's the president-elect because he got more electoral votes by winning the popular vote in the individual states. Hillary won the overall popular vote, which is what the petition is about. The electors haven't voted yet, but will on December 19.
> _>

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 9.7 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #500,052

@previous (A)
How can he win the popular vote in states but lose the overall popular vote?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 9.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #500,053

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
States like california have a population of 40m, he trailed behind Hillary by about 2m+ votes in California.
Doesn't really change a thing if he had 1 vote less than Hillary in that state or only 1 vote at all there; he'd still lose the state but the overall popular vote would be more in her favour as they were pretty much neck and neck in votes for the other states.

+Bat Nugget is !GrateABlug — 9.7 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #500,054

@500,052 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)

Short answer, the electoral college is bullshit.

+Anonymous D — 9.7 years ago, 56 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,055

@500,052 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Off the top of my head:wyoming with less than 500,000 people has (minimum allowed by law)3 electoral votes. N Dakota with twice the pop. also has 3 electoral votes. If states were given the electoral representatives in accordance with their population, California would have 199 electoral votes, but we only receive 55. It takes only 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. The popular vote doesn't get you elected, unfortunately.

Also, I believe electoral representatives can legally vote for whoever they want. Although it's never happened, they can vote for the loosing ticket if they wished.

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 9.7 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,064

@previous (D)
So the "your vote counts" mantra is bullshit, at least in highly populated states like Cali and NY.
And the founding fathers actually though this system would work smoothly?

·Anonymous D — 9.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,068

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Yeah, pretty much. I think the eight smaller states(population wise) have the biggest disproportional advantage with less than 4% combine population and 8% of the electoral votes.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 9.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,069

@500,064 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 9.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,070

@previous (A)
So basically it's okay to ignore half of the population just because they live in close proximity to each other?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 9.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,071

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Their votes are only worthless on a grand scale, on a state level it means a lot.

In other news, some progress with the petition!

(Edited 18 seconds later.)

+Anonymous E — 9.7 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,072

·Anonymous E — 9.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,073

If this actually happens, would this be historic?

·Anonymous E — 9.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #500,074

@500,055 (D)
You forgot to mention that 29 states would actually penalize "faithless electors", but it is minimal. I.E. a fee.

@500,064 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Our vote never really mattered, well, okay, it matters in terms of affecting the electoral vote. I think Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 while Bush took the electoral. What makes this whole situation interesting to me is that people are tired of Bush's bullshit. Even though this is a small chance, it could happen. Votes for local propositions and candidates still hold weight.

·Anonymous E — 9.7 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #500,120

The petition almost reached it's goal.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?source_location=discover_feed

A shame the F.E.L.'s never made it.

Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.

TinyChan