You're gonna have to quote the clause, because I'm not seeing it. Not saying you're wrong necessarily.
It's hilarious that Trump is so insecure he feels the need to fabricate vote fraud so that he doesn't have to face the fact that more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for his worthless ass. George W. Bush never felt compelled to do that, but then, Bush wasn't a pathetically insecure narcissist.
Yeah, I'm not seeing that either, so unless there has been a court case regarding the question (which I doubt), there does not appear to be any restriction on who is eligible for an elector to name as President on his ballot.
It would be hilarious if it weren't distracting from the actual, documented issues of voter suppression that took place.
Okay I'l hand it to Hillary - she can get Stein to do her dirty work for her (grasping at that tiny, soggy sinking straw!) and Stein pockets the difference between the cost of the vote recount and how much money she raises. Of course she'll give a cut to Hillary. But you must admit this is "transparent" government at it's best - a fucking three year old can see right through this scam! Does Hillary even have a shred of integrity (as measured by sane adults?) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...election-fraud-or-lining-her-own-pockets.html
As near as I can tell, the 12th Amendment doesn't even require there to be a ballot. The method of choosing electors is left up to the states, so theoretically a state legislature could reserve that power for themselves. At any rate, Ronald Reagan got an electoral vote in 1976, and more recently, a couple of electors flipped their votes (keeping with the party they were pledged to, but voting for the presidential candidate for VP and vice versa) ... in one case it was a form of protest, and in the other, it was probably a mistake.
Right. Back in the days of the 12th Amendment, at the beginning of the 19th century, many states still had electors chosen by state legislatures, not democratically. The whole concept is anachronistic.
I personally think it's great how many of our right leaning posters have come round firmly to the defense of affirmative action to redress social imbalances. Welcome to the party guys.
As long as those 37 electors flipped for someone not named Hilary Clinton, the Trumpets would be fine.
See, it's this hyperbolic nonsense that has turned us into a nuclear armed nuthouse. Really, throw out the survival guides and cancel the disaster prepper magazines. Spend it on building ships in a bottle. It's more worthwhile.
It doesn't matter who they flipped for. Do you really think the Republicans would give POTUS to Hillary?
Nope. The 12th amendment pertains only to who the House of Representatives (top 3 presidential electoral vote getters*) and Senate (top 2 vice presidential electoral vote getters) can consider, and puts no restrictions on who electors can vote for. 29 states have faithless elector laws, but I don't believe any state has ever successfully prosecuted a faithless elector case, and the penalties are not unduly harsh in any case ($1000 fine in Washington, for instance). *although the way it's worded, if the electoral college had 1 elector for each of 37 different candidates, with neither Trump or Clinton having a majority, then the House can consider all 39 candidates. We still end up with VP Pence though.
Nope, not in there. There is nothing that specifies whom an elector may vote for, as long as at least one of the two for whom he votes (president and vice-president) is not from his own state.
I just said they wouldn't At any rate, the sudden flip ain't gonna happen. Not for Clinton or anyone else.
No, we shouldn't be glad, because if Trump continues to operate his business, he will be in violation of the Constitution from day one. Emolument clause anyone?
To the topic in general. What I've seen people using Hillary's win of the popular vote is generally for a couple of reasons: 1) To try and argue Trump has no mandate 2) To defend the Democratic platform (it wasn't the message, it was the tactics) 3) Comfort themselves and others that a majority of Americans, or even just those that voted DIDN'T vote for a candidate that they feel represents some of the worst of America. Is anyone on WF arguing that it means the election should be overturned?
#1 and #3 are especially important. I hadn't heard of nor considered #2. I don't think the election should be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was illegally tampered with, and that the illegal tampering actually altered the outcome (i.e., even if the current investigations in some states reveal illegal tampering, such tampering probably didn't affect the overall outcome). So far, there is no such evidence, thus we must accept the outcome.
I can't remember seeing anybody here argue that. And while there definitely are people pushing for Trump electors to vote for Clinton, the constitutional originalists among us should really be more comfortable than anyone with that scenario.
The overall conversation keeps going like this ... Trumpsters: "Americans chose Trump! Boo-yah!" Democrats: "Well, no, they really didn't. 2.3 million more Americans voted for Clinton, but because of the way our electoral system is set up, the election went to Trump anyway." Trumpsters: "Let me tell you about a little thing called the Electoral College!" Democrats: "We are perfectly aware of the Electoral College, thank you very much. In fact, it's the reason we're having this conversation in the first place." Trumpsters: "Well, Trump won it!" Democrats: "Yes, he did. This fact is not in dispute. However, he did so while receiving 2.3 million fewer votes than his opponent, so to say that Americans chose him, or rejected the person who actually got more support than him, is inaccurate." Trumpsters: "But ... Electoral College!" Democrats: "Yes, once again, we know about the Electoral College. The fact that Trump got more electoral votes is not in dispute. Do you need us to underline that for you?" Trumpsters: "TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP!"
