Master Index of Archived Threads


Elect Oral Mischief

Fman99 Dec 06 2016 02:28 AM

Read this article on the FB after seeing Seawolf post it there. I've seen a lot of grouchy liberals posting encouraging thoughts like this on that site but have not given them any serious thought, because it seems to me to be mostly just a lot of wishful thinking and grasping at straws. This is the first I've read of someone with an electoral vote actually making that declaration. Is there a realistic chance that a significant percentage of electors go faithless and pull the trigger for someone other than the candidate who won in their state? As much as a Trump presidency scares me, the potential of violent reaction to an electoral surprise scares me more, because it represents a disruption to the process of orderly changing of power from president to president.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2016 02:41 AM Re: Elect Oral Mischief

Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. BOOM! Good point. Good 'ol 68. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. The problem is, well, the Federalist Papers, while they underscore the philosophy behind the Constitution, they themselves are not law, are certainly not binding, and have no governing body or court giving them an authoritative interpretation. But sure, cite 'ol 68 and abandon that unbalanced, sovereignty-threatening fraud. Watch your back while you're at it.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 06 2016 02:56 AM Re: Elect Oral Mischief

There are, from time to time, faithless electors. But there is no chance that enough would change to alter the result of the election.

Mets Willets Point Dec 06 2016 07:19 PM Re: Elect Oral Mischief

The risk of Trump and his cabinet entrenched in the Federal government is far greater than the chance that some of his supporter *might* respond with mass violence in my opinion. The longer Trump is in power the greater the risk of great suffering, violence, and war, so if there's a chance to nip it in the bud we should take it.