Donald Trump could still theoretically not be president because of ‘faithless electors’

[millefleur 5,046]

Donald Trump could still theoretically not be president because of ‘faithless electors’ and the electoral college

The electors can still change their minds before a meeting in December, and if enough of them did then it would theoretically reverse the result of the election.

It’s still theoretically possible for Donald Trump not to become president. But the near-impossibility all depends on the electoral college and the strange US system.

Donald Trump might have won the election by getting more of the votes in the electoral college than Hillary Clinton did. But strictly and legally, it’s not the election that just happened that matters: it’s the one where the members of the electoral college go and represent their voters and pick their candidate.

That’s due to happen on 12 December, at meetings in each state where all Republican or Democrat representatives – depending on how each state voted – will cast their vote. And it will almost certainly go one way, with most of the electors casting their ballots for Donald Trump and making him President.

via The Independent

Not trying to give false hope or anything, but it's theoretically possible. December 12th, here we come.

(The Electoral College is such an odd system when you really sit down and think about it.)

Edited November 11, 2016 by millefleur

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Jesus they recycle this same bs every 4 years

[Teddy B 17,252]

Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no.

[millefleur 5,046]

Hey, if we've learned anything from this election: You never know what can happen!!

[smilesammich 10,727]

via The Independent

Not trying to give false hope or anything, but it's theoretically possible. December 12th, here we come.

(The Electoral College is such an odd system when you really sit down and think about it.)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

[millefleur 5,046]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

Well, that does give an insight into the rather undemocratic nature of the EC. Thanks.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Well, that does give an insight into the rather undemocratic nature of the EC. Thanks.

unfortunately there's a big rig in motion trying to put all that inconvenient and uncomfortable history out of our minds. .

[bcking 3,157]

If there is a change in the electoral college it isn't going to happen in an election year. That is too destabilizing. It would have to be something that changes in between election seasons. It is too polarizing otherwise. A president winning the electoral college but not the popular vote doesn't happen that often (5 times I think they've said?) and 40% of the cases have happened in the last 20 years so it may be something that starts happening more frequently in which case something may need to change.

[smilesammich 10,727]

read some liberals on fb talking about organizing and moving into red states to reverse the hold.

[bcking 3,157]

read some liberals on fb talking about organizing and moving into red states to reverse the hold.

For the Presidential election if anything democrats have an advantage for the electoral college. We've had an advantage for the past several presidential elections. THe reason why it failed this year is just because we had 10 million less people voting. States were won by Trump where he had less voters than Romney did when he lost the state. If you look at the "traditional" blue states (some of which we lost this election) they add to much closer to 270 than the "traditional" red states do. Republicans generally end up taking more states but they all count for less individually.

Now if you're talking about Senate/House then yes I guess people could try moving county lines/state lines to try to influence those. It would take quite a large level of organization I find it unlikely.

[smilesammich 10,727]

For the Presidential election if anything democrats have an advantage for the electoral college. We've had an advantage for the past several presidential elections. THe reason why it failed this year is just because we had 10 million less people voting. States were won by Trump where he had less voters than Romney did when he lost the state. If you look at the "traditional" blue states (some of which we lost this election) they add to much closer to 270 than the "traditional" red states do. Republicans generally end up taking more states but they all count for less individually.

Now if you're talking about Senate/House then yes I guess people could try moving county lines/state lines to try to influence those. It would take quite a large level of organization I find it unlikely.

yeah i know.

i wasn't talking about this strategy at all, facebook 'activism' you know. i just saw some folks talking about turning red states blue from the inside out. moving into the belly of the beast as opposed to fleeing it. i think virginia is a good example of how that happens with the NOVA/rest of virginia polarity.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Some called for #AssassinateTrump directly .

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I understand why the EC exists today, or at least the standard theory behind it. It's to spread the vote so that rural voters have a voice too. But if people wanted their voice to be heard, wouldn't they be able to do so by... Going out and voting? So what if the population of NYC is nearly half of the rest of the state. If the folks outside the city went and voted, they could oppose what the big city dwellers voted for, right?

I mean, Hillary took NY state in spite of the fact that most counties voted red. More voters in less counties voted blue. So she won. What's wrong with this, exactly?

[Póg mo 1,749]

Some called for #AssassinateTrump directly .

Trump's VP is an insurance policy against that happening.

[Dashinka 24,488]

There was a Gary Johnson supporter on a comments board that was advocating a win for Johnson through the EC regardless of the popular vote. I don't see it happening, but it was an interesting theory. As to getting the needed number of faithless electors to ignore their pledge and vote for Hillary in December, I think that is highly unlikely. I think the electors are chosen by the state party machines and I don't see enough of them voting for Hillary to make a difference, and if they choose to vote for someone else, it doesn't have to be Hillary.

Just for history sake, the last faithless elector happened in 2004 where an unknown Minnesota elector voted for Edwards as president instead of Kerry. They don't know who, but they believe it was simply an error.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Bill & Katya