Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Socialist Nordia]

America shouldn't be blackmailed into accepting Trump and not pursuing Hillary's election via faithless electors based on empty threats that Trump supporters will start a civil war.

"Empty threats". Ok.

To suggest they aren't empty would to be suggest that massive hordes of Trump supporters would be willing to risk everything to go out and kill and die for Trump.

[Bakery Hill]

It's not a democracy, which is why people got angry. Hillary won the superior vote to very urban areas, but Trump won the rural areas. Our system was designed so a big state like California with about forty million people don't undermine other states like Wyoming with only about six hundred thousand. So yeah it does count, but the United States isn't majority rule, so the other portion of the country doesn't get screwed over.

Well, then. I guess I'm ready to bend over for the 3 people that live in Wyoming. Please, do whatever you want Wyoming. Don't worry about me, I'm just urban scum that would do things you don't like without the EC. I'm ready to disregard what more people want because that wouldn't be fair for poor little Wyoming who would lose every time.

Do you understand why federalism is a thing? How it works? It's a compromise.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

The establishment is on the run, they are desperate in trying to stump Trump.

Its not even the establishment who are doing this. Its people like me.

But isn't kinda fishy that people come up with this idea AFTER the election.
If you want to change to popular vote, then it shouldn't affect previous elections.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Can we not do this. I positively loath Trump, and everything that he stands for, but I'd like to think that such enmity doesn't compromise my core principals or ideals. One of these principles is that the electoral process not be subverted, in contravention to the popular mandate.

How is going with the public vote compromising a core ideal of yours?

The KKK are organising parade marches in Trump's name and you're sitting there tell me it's fine to allow him into office?

[Shofercia]

It's not a democracy, which is why people got angry. Hillary won the superior vote to very urban areas, but Trump won the rural areas. Our system was designed so a big state like California with about forty million people don't undermine other states like Wyoming with only about six hundred thousand. So yeah it does count, but the United States isn't majority rule, so the other portion of the country doesn't get screwed over.

Now it leads to a tyranny by the minority.

Clinton didn't win a majority of votes either. How many Johnson votes might've gone for Trump if it was up to the popular vote? Clinton would also be tyranny by the minority. Gore also won a plurality of votes, not a majority. Granted his bro also helped him out in Florida, but that's a discussion for another thread. The last time a candidate won a majority of the popular vote, but lost due to the Electoral College, was in 1876, roughly 140 years ago, back when the US was roughly 100 years old.

[The Flutterlands]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 states.

Clinton won the popular vote in 20 states, some of them just so happening to have more people.

Trump won more states, therefore he won. Fair and square.

The election is about state populations, which I learned and as it should be, not the population of the whole country.

[Tekeristan]

America isn't very democratic, heh..

[Dushan]

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

On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!
We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.
Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.
Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.
But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?
SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.
There is no reason Trump should be President.
"It's the 'People's Will'"
No. She won the popular vote.
"Our system of government under our Constitution says he wins"
No. Our Constitution says the Electors choose.
"Too many states prohibit 'Faithless Electors'"
24 states bind electors. If electors vote against their party, they usually pay a fine. And people get mad. But they can vote however they want and there is no legal means to stop them in most states.

The electiral college is broken and undemocratic, but it can still choose to follow the will of the people and vote for Hillary Clinton. Many Trump supporters and people who don't really like democracy have been vehemently defending the electoral college lately. When you defend the current system, this is a part of it. If electors were to go faithless amen masse and elect Hillary Clinton, it would be fully within the bounds layed out by the constitution. So, what say you NSG? Is it time to use this undemocratic institution to uphold democracy in the time being, while we wait to have it abolished?

Thats all I gotta say.

[United Marxist Nations]

Oh, so the majority of states chose Clinton now?

It's the federal government, not the national government. The states are supposed to decide, not the people.

A federal government is a national government. And if you wanted a majority of states, Republicans would have had the Presidency from Reagan until today undisturbed except for 1996-2000.

No, a federal government is a government that shares power with its various members.

[The Portland Territory]

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

On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!
We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.
Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.
Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.
But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?
SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.
There is no reason Trump should be President.
"It's the 'People's Will'"
No. She won the popular vote.
"Our system of government under our Constitution says he wins"
No. Our Constitution says the Electors choose.
"Too many states prohibit 'Faithless Electors'"
24 states bind electors. If electors vote against their party, they usually pay a fine. And people get mad. But they can vote however they want and there is no legal means to stop them in most states.

The electiral college is broken and undemocratic, but it can still choose to follow the will of the people and vote for Hillary Clinton. Many Trump supporters and people who don't really like democracy have been vehemently defending the electoral college lately. When you defend the current system, this is a part of it. If electors were to go faithless amen masse and elect Hillary Clinton, it would be fully within the bounds layed out by the constitution. So, what say you NSG? Is it time to use this undemocratic institution to uphold democracy in the time being, while we wait to have it abolished?

Well aint that nice?

They should follow how their states voted because that's how it was meant to be. Sure, Clinton won the popular vote, but the majority of the country still voted against her. She had a plurality, but not a majority. They should just go along with how their states voted and remain loyal

[Trotskylvania]

Well, then. I guess I'm ready to bend over for the 3 people that live in Wyoming. Please, do whatever you want Wyoming. Don't worry about me, I'm just urban scum that would do things you don't like without the EC. I'm ready to disregard what more people want because that wouldn't be fair for poor little Wyoming who would lose every time.

Is exactly what the framers wanted to prevent.

The Framers wanted to give the South votes for the slaves they denied the very humanity of. "Protecting small states" was little better than a gloss for this.

The institution that protects states are their state governments and the Senate. They don't need to be complicating the presidential election as well.

[The Portland Territory]

Can we not do this. I positively loath Trump, and everything that he stands for, but I'd like to think that such enmity doesn't compromise my core principals or ideals. One of these principles is that the electoral process not be subverted, in contravention to the popular mandate.

How is going with the public vote compromising a core ideal of yours?

The KKK are organising parade marches in Trump's name and you're sitting there tell me it's fine to allow him into office?

Yes. Because that's a tiny portion of his supporters. Like what most Liberals say about Muslims: Just because a tiny portion is radical, doesnt mean they all are. This goes for Trump as well, no exception, right?

[Thermodolia]

3 months ago I believed that the majority of American people could possibly be stupid enough to put Trump in power, clearly I gave my country too much credit.

Neither Clinton nor Trump got the majority. Neither managed to make it past 48%. That's not a majority. A majority is 50% + 1.

I don't understand though.. does your vote really count? I find it a little bizarre that we would have to sign a petition for a president we want. She did win the popular vote after all.

The Clinton supporters, at least the ones that demand we switch over to popular vote, are attempting to change the rules as the election reaches the climax. I'm all for abolishing the EC, but it has to happen before the election. When candidates campaign in the EC system, they campaign very differently, than when they campaign on the basis of popular vote. You shouldn't be allowed to change the rules, after the population voted for president. You shouldn't be allowed to change the rules, after the voting starts. Heck, you shouldn't even be allowed the change the rules, once the primaries start.

Ya it's a shity move buts it's entirely legal. There should be more restrictions on how the electors vote and they shouldn't be unelected.

It's legal, but impractical. You expect 32 Republican Electors to go against their own party?

Ya it's improbable. I don't expect Clinton to be the one who would win in such a scenario, I'd expect it to be someone like Romney, Rubio, or Kaisch.

[Eastern Vietistan]

i was thinking about voting for clinton but then i voted for a chair they both have an equal chance of winning people ! no im just kidding this we need to get rid of the democrat authority in this nation it is in some ways good the republicans are fully in charge by a majority

[Valrifell]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 states.

Clinton won the popular vote in 20 states, some of them just so happening to have more people.

Trump won more states, therefore he won. Fair and square.

The electoral college is about state populations, which I learned and as it should be, not the population of the whole country.

But you don't even need the most states to win. If PA, MI, OH, and WI went the other way, that'd be a 26/24 spit but with Clinton having the most electoral votes. Heck, throw Ohio back in there and Clinton still comes out on top.

[Shofercia]

witch over to popular vote, are attempting to change the rules as the election reaches the climax. I'm all for abolishing the EC, but it has to happen before the election. When candidates campaign in the EC system, they campaign very differently, than when they campaign on the basis of popular vote. You shouldn't be allowed to change the rules, after the population voted for president. You shouldn't be allowed to change the rules, after the voting starts. Heck, you shouldn't even be allowed the change the rules, once the primaries start.

It is entirely too convenient to complain about the EC once your side loses, just to reverse that loss.

This is perhaps one of the few topics that we agree wholeheartedly on.

Exactly. Want to abolish it? Go for it, for the 2020 election, and make sure all candidates know that it's abolished by 2018. Either that, or end this whole faithless elector nonsense.

Is exactly what the framers wanted to prevent.

The Framers wanted to give the South votes for the slaves they denied the very humanity of. "Protecting small states" was little better than a gloss for this.

The institution that protects states are their state governments and the Senate. They don't need to be complicating the presidential election as well.

Again, change it. But not after the votes were cast.

[Uxupox]

"Empty threats". Ok.

To suggest they aren't empty would to be suggest that massive hordes of Trump supporters would be willing to risk everything to go out and kill and die for Trump.

Die for Trump? Nah. Die for an injustice comitted by the EV by going against what their state majority did and violating their state rights? Sounds about right.

[Liriena]

Oh my god, would y'all stop trying to cover for that sexually harrassing butthole with that disgusting and pathetic excuse? Seriously, it's just sad at this point how millions of people wholeheartedly embraced and parroted the bullcrap "locker room talk" narrative pushed by Trump's campaign.

I don't know about you, but I've never bragged about sexually harrassing and assaulting women in any locker room. Not once. And I cannot recall a single instance in which I heard the exact same sort of talk in any locker room.

And more important, Trump did not say what he said in a bloody locker room. He said it during an actual interview with a TV personality. The moment he opened his mouth inside that bus, knowing that he was being recorded, it stopped being whatever the heck y'all believe "locker room talk" is.

Locker Room Talk is just where you talk about stuff to make yourself look Alpha.

So sexually insecure men trying to act all macho and stuff, because heaven forbid any man should be anything less than an unrestrained, ravenous creep. Sad.

It doesn't need to be sexual either. Usually I call it "chewing the chud" or "hitting the bull" but I assumed more people would know the phrase "Locker Room Talk". In this case it was sexual, in other cases it might be "gangsta" stuff or something else. Anything that makes you look manly.

Bragging about the fact that you get away with sexual harrassment and assault because you're famous makes you look "manly"? Disregarding the fact that you unwittingly confirmed that this sort of thing is misogynistic, it perfectly illustrates why I don't give a single solitary hell for being "masculine". The sort of masculinity you speak of here is disgusting and pathetic.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

How is going with the public vote compromising a core ideal of yours?

The KKK are organising parade marches in Trump's name and you're sitting there tell me it's fine to allow him into office?

Yes. Because that's a tiny portion of his supporters. Like what most Liberals say about Muslims: Just because a tiny portion is radical, doesnt mean they all are. This goes for Trump as well, no exception, right?

I agree, it is BS to criticise him for KKK people supporting him.
Don't forget that blacks and Latinos also voted for the Donald.

[The Serbian Empire]

Now it leads to a tyranny by the minority.

Clinton didn't win a majority of votes either. How many Johnson votes might've gone for Trump if it was up to the popular vote? Clinton would also be tyranny by the minority. Gore also won a plurality of votes, not a majority. Granted his bro also helped him out in Florida, but that's a discussion for another thread. The last time a candidate won a majority of the popular vote, but lost due to the Electoral College, was in 1876, roughly 140 years ago, back when the US was roughly 100 years old.

This is why in other countries, runoff elections occur if there isn't a majority choice.

A federal government is a national government. And if you wanted a majority of states, Republicans would have had the Presidency from Reagan until today undisturbed except for 1996-2000.

No, a federal government is a government that shares power with its various members.

I don't think you see this when the Supreme Court rulings state that local laws and state laws are overruled by federal decisions saying the opposite otherwise same-sex marriage couldn't happen in Mississippi and DEA drug busts for marijuana couldn't occur in WA or CO.

[Shofercia]

Ya it's improbable. I don't expect Clinton to be the one who would win in such a scenario, I'd expect it to be someone like Romney, Rubio, or Kaisch.

I doubt it. The Republican Party seized all branches of Government due to the Donald, and they know it. They're not going to throw away four years of domination politics, just because a couple thousand liberals are protesting or because of an online petition.

[Trotskylvania]

The Framers wanted to give the South votes for the slaves they denied the very humanity of. "Protecting small states" was little better than a gloss for this.

The institution that protects states are their state governments and the Senate. They don't need to be complicating the presidential election as well.

Again, change it. But not after the votes were cast.

I've already made it abundantly clear in this thread that I regard the faithless electors strategy as one inviting calamity and potential civil war.

[Valaran]

Can we not do this. I positively loath Trump, and everything that he stands for, but I'd like to think that such enmity doesn't compromise my core principals or ideals. One of these principles is that the electoral process not be subverted, in contravention to the popular mandate.

How is going with the public vote compromising a core ideal of yours?

Firstly, because that is not the electoral system we have. Nor did Clinton win a majoirty for that matter - she won more than trump, but not a majority. In Europe, this would lead to coalition between parties, and one that may exclude the largest party. This is not some uncrossable line to me.

But more importantly, this is not actually about that. This is about being unable to accept that we lost, or, for that matter why. No one seriously did more than grumble about the EC until we lost. The circumstances are revelatory. The real strength of democracy can only be determined when it is tested, and this is how you fail that test.

The KKK are organising parade marches in Trump's name and you're sitting there tell me it's fine to allow him into office?

Firstly, that is an emotional appeal, and secondly, that is entirely within their legal rights to do so. I am not moved by people I dislike celebrating into abandoning the peaceful transfer of power.

[Thermodolia]

Oh my god, would y'all stop trying to cover for that sexually harrassing butthole with that disgusting and pathetic excuse? Seriously, it's just sad at this point how millions of people wholeheartedly embraced and parroted the bullcrap "locker room talk" narrative pushed by Trump's campaign.

I don't know about you, but I've never bragged about sexually harrassing and assaulting women in any locker room. Not once. And I cannot recall a single instance in which I heard the exact same sort of talk in any locker room.

And more important, Trump did not say what he said in a bloody locker room. He said it during an actual interview with a TV personality. The moment he opened his mouth inside that bus, knowing that he was being recorded, it stopped being whatever the heck y'all believe "locker room talk" is.

Locker Room Talk is just where you talk about stuff to make yourself look Alpha. It doesn't need to be sexual either. Usually I call it "chewing the chud" or "hitting the bull" but I assumed more people would know the phrase "Locker Room Talk". In this case it was sexual, in other cases it might be "gangsta" stuff or something else. Anything that makes you look manly.

Have you actually ever been in a locker room before?

[Bakery Hill]

To suggest they aren't empty would to be suggest that massive hordes of Trump supporters would be willing to risk everything to go out and kill and die for Trump.

Die for Trump? Nah. Die for an injustice comitted by the EV by going against what their state majority did and violating their state rights? Sounds about right.

Yep. It's a possibility.