SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by DeathMonkey
Good news everybody!
Hillary Clinton will be an Electoral College Elector for NY
Aren't you glad to know that your votes don't actually count and that Hillary Clinton is one of mere 538 people in the United States whose vote actually does count?
Hillary Clinton, Electoral College Elector
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 79 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
All this time I've been VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:20PM (3 children)
I don't get to vote for Clinton to vote in our president of law and order, Kamala Harris. I must instead nudge my friend over there to vote for Clinton to vote in our president of law and order.
(Score: 2) by Aegis on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:41PM (2 children)
And even if you did get to vote for Clinton to vote for President, and Trump happened to win, she can just say fuck it and vote for Biden anyway.
Ain't our system great!
Faithless Elector [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:48AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:30PM
We are voting for the electors on 3 November.
If Republicans win, the Democrat slate of electors is irrelevant. The Republican slate will cast their vote, and Hillary can stay home and get drunk.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:35PM (1 child)
But 95% of the voters are too scared to try, instead they/you do what the TeeVee says, vote for your DNC/GOP, and then complain. If you voice your complaints with your vote, they will really count!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:40PM
Redundant
Hmm, evidently democrats don't want your votes to count, unless you vote for them. Helplessness must be maintained.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 28 2020, @11:19PM (2 children)
I am quite sure that Hillary will represent her constituency fairly and properly! /sarcasm
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:46PM (1 child)
Since you vote for a party/person, and not for electors [wikipedia.org], Hillary or any other electors don't have an actual constituency, do they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 29 2020, @02:27PM
Yes, they do. Each elector represents a district. If the district goes for Candidate A, the elector is supposed to vote for Candidate A, not for B, C, D, or E.
Memory tells me that faithless electors have been dismissed and replaced with electors who would vote as their district voted, while others have got away with defying the popular vote. No, I'm not diving into internet searches to find out how many have been overridden, but it has happened.
Democrats and Republicans may well have different rules to address this, they certainly have different rules for nominations.
But, the core of your question is, "Who do electors represent", and that is obviously the voters. If electors weren't intended to represent the voters, then why bother with the popular vote?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:06AM (5 children)
... a faithless elector throws the election?
... what if Hillary is that faithless elector?
She'd definitely become even more memeable than she is now, anyway.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:53AM (4 children)
Well, if that comes to pass, then it will be time for liberals to pull a conservative aww-gee-shucks and say "well, it wasn't illegal, whatcha gonna do?"
Thanks for destroying political discourse in the US Republicans!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:55PM
AKA the McConnell Rule
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:44PM (2 children)
Yeah, I think the democratic party's lease on that argument ran out sometime before WWII when FDR wanted to pack a court.
I mean, he didn't get to do it, but he gave it the ol' college try.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:53PM (1 child)
Yes, the magic immutable number is NINE. NINE shall there be and always shall there be exactly NINE!
Unless Obama.... then eight is cool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2020, @01:44AM
That doesn't really comport with the history of the court-packing argument.
But, y'know, whatever. Go change the court's makeup. Nobody could possibly see that as a desperate power grab. What could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 29 2020, @02:27AM (5 children)
That's some fucking funny shit right there!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:04AM
Ah yeah. Men become the majority of the population in good times. When men become the majority, they instinctively need to kill each other, and because they've appointed themselves the gender in charge, they drag the rest of us to hell.
End the cycle. Kill all men. Or at least make sure they stay a minority, and revoke their voting rights. That should fix your problem with weak men creating hard times.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:58PM (1 child)
Hard Men create Good Times which create Strong Women which create Weak Men.
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 30 2020, @02:13AM
Newp. Hard times create strong women. The people folks call strong women nowadays aren't fit to shine my grandmother's shoes. Being a horrible cunt is not strength, it's just being a horrible cunt.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:10PM (1 child)
haha yeah! They knew EXACTLY what they were doing!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 30 2020, @02:16AM
See? I don't just appreciate the Great American Middle Finger when it's aimed at Dems or other self-important twats. It's an important part of our cultural heritage that I don't want to see die out to political correctness.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:28AM (6 children)
New York voted to elect Trump, and Hillary had to vote for the candidate that she herself lost to in the 2016 election.
Now I'm hoping for a Trump majority in New York state, just to Hillary can be stuck with that irony.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:00PM (5 children)
What would be even more ironic was if Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote.
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:14PM (3 children)
That would be the day conservatives suddenly discovered that every vote should count equally.
That one won't happen. But what may happen is Texas going blue long term. Republicans will the never win the Presidency again when (not if, according to some pretty compelling demographics) that happens. They'll definitely rediscover the concept of one-man-one-vote again at that point.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:43PM (2 children)
I definitely don't expect Trump to win by popular vote. (Although I won't be shocked if he wins . . . somehow.)
I pointed it out because of the very irony you describe. Republicans would suddenly flip-flip about face on the electoral college.
I would love to see Texas flip to blue. I don't expect it. But if it happens, it would be quite amusing.
Because of Trump, I believe the Republican party may be done. Trump made people realize that it is important to vote. It is only the red states that want to suppress votes and make voting more difficult, oppose easy mechanisms of voter registration, etc.
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:05PM (1 child)
Youth turnout in TX is up 250%! It might actually go blue this time but possibly not reliably enough yet.
Good point! When Republicans discover that every vote should count equal regardless of party that could be due to the fact they're starting a new party!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:31PM
I just read an article about Trump now trying to take private land from land owners in Texas in order to build the wall.
I wonder how Texans like the wall now?
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2020, @04:32AM
And Hillary was appointed AG.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:37AM (26 children)
dislike the electoral college method of electing the president. You are perfectly entitled to think it is a bad way to go about electing the president.
But, if you think it is bad, then what you need to do is start pushing/bugging/bribing your congress critters to change it to some other way to choose the president.
But what you should not do is go into a deranged insanity because your candidate lost the election despite grabbing more popular votes.
Everyone, even you deranged ones, knew the rules going in to 2016. They were the same as this time:
Popular vote: does not matter, ignore it.
Electoral College vote: does matter, this is the only one to pay attention to.
So you should ignore the popular vote for this election, it does not matter, and you know it does not matter going in to the election. The rules are the electoral college vote matters, and only the electoral college vote matters.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:53AM (18 children)
Already on it buddy!
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote [nationalpopularvote.com]
The winner of the Presidential election should be the person with the most votes.
And I just did the most powerful thing I can do as an American to support that proposition: I just voted for it on the Colorado ballot. [ballotpedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:58AM (6 children)
And I just voted against it! I did the most powerful thing I can do as an American to prevent this from happening!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:49PM (5 children)
You just voted to take your own vote away and give it to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:03PM (1 child)
And you just voted for a non sequitur.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:09PM
Nope, I voted to take away Hillary Rodham Clinton's vote.
And New York agrees with me! They also voted to take away Hillary Rodham Clinton's vote.
Why do you want Hitlery to vote so badly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:18PM (2 children)
My state has a democratically elected government - the federation does not need to be directly elected. I'm all for increasing the number of electors (through repealing the Permanent Apportionment Act), but that would require changes that are unpopular with the elites who would lose power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @07:29PM (1 child)
Sorry, the anti-federalist wind farmers were defeated not once in 1789, not twice in 1865, but a third time starting in 1933 when it took a librul commie to save capitalism from itself by proving that when the jerb creators go galt, we can still employ the working class to continue the work of building civilization. That pseudo-anon shitposter Publius would be proud.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @07:51PM
Ah, I see. Only supporters of monolithic government are allowed to be socialists. Ill go burn all those lefty books I'm no longer authorized to read, quit reading wsws, and move to Somalia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:58AM (3 children)
And that is the right way to do things.
Not get all frothy at the mouth because someone does not declare a legal, corporate owned bank account, on a declaration asking about personal assets.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:53PM (2 children)
We can also be angry that the President of the United States of America kept a bank account he owned in China secret from the American public.
This is why every other President in the history of the Union has divested himself from his businesses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @07:38PM
So super secret, it was listed on the corporate tax return.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @12:47AM
Incorrect again.
Trump does not own the bank account.
The corporation owns the bank account.
The corporation is not Trump, and Trump is not the corporation (in the eyes of the law). They are completely separate entities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:18AM (2 children)
Direct democracy in action.
Defund the police? Ballot initiatives eventually forcing an article V convention.
Single payer health care? Ballot initiatives. Article V convention. (Keep trying!)
End the war on some drugs? Convention.
And the forever war? Convention.
Approval voting? Convention.
Recall Ms. Women Are Property and Mr. Frat Boy Rapist? Convention.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:16PM (1 child)
No thanks.
I like Representative Democracy I just think it needs to be, y'know... representative.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:59PM
Ah, direct democracy is too representative, unless we're talking about abolishing the electoral college. A very moderate stance. Again I'm reminded of one of the original SJWs:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:29AM (3 children)
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:41AM
Ballot initiatives and article V convention! No compact is involved other than the mutual interests of states that have passed similar ballot initiatives, such as cannabis legalization. However, usually when an article V convention is imminent, Congress will amend the Constitution first to save face. Consider the history of alcohol prohibition from a several states viewpoint. Either way ballot initiatives are the way to go, and some forward-looking state legislatures will even pass similar laws on their own.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:53AM (1 child)
Additionally, for this specific issue, allow me to also quote scripture. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each state has the authority to determine how its electors are appointed, and no compact is involved if this manner depends on the national popular vote. Theoretically Jo20 could get 1 elector from a state appointing electors in such a manner.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:36PM
"Compact" is one of those words that has different meaning in different contexts.
Compact used as a legal term really just means a contract. [thefreedictionary.com]
NPV is using the general sense.
Passing a law that says "From now on our electors go to the winner of the national popular vote" does not meet the strict sense. There's no exchange, there's no enforcement, there's no contract.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:55AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:01AM (5 children)
Also true. A win by popular vote method will also change how/where/why the candidates campaign.
And had the system changed to "popular vote" for the 2016 election, that does not mean Hillary would have won. It means both Trump and Hillary would have campaigned differently, and the popular vote would have been different. And it is possible Trump would still have won 2016, even with a popular vote, because of the different campaigning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:33AM (4 children)
You sound like you've given this some thought. How would you run those campaigns differently given direct voting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:22PM (3 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:39PM (2 children)
The flyover country would be proper fucked. Might as well kill them quick and painless, then declare the midwest a natural reservation.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:21PM (1 child)
You mean the states they already don't visit because they're reliably Red?
And you know what's even MORE egregious? There are millions of people in the US who don't get any Presidential vote AT ALL! [pri.org] They don't even get the bullshit 3/5s of a vote we get here in blue states.
Sounds like taxation without representation to me!
(Score: 2) by rcamera on Friday October 30 2020, @01:03PM
let them fight to become a state like the rest of us did, then their vote will count. but they generally don't want that because they'll then have to pay federal income taxes; which they mostly don't (so the "taxation" part of that argument just fell apart...). that leads to an interesting counter; if some do-nothing dirt-farmer in a flyover state (or south carolina, or mississippi, etc) pays no federal income taxes (a member of romney's famous 48%...), do they, in fact, get representation without taxation?
however, you missed the truly egregious demonstration of taxation without representation; D.C. they have no representation in the senate, and their representation in the house is often not allowed to vote.
D.C would be the 3rd smallest "state". but, it would have a population greater than the SUM of guam, u.s virigin islands, northern mariana islands, and american samoa.
STATEHOOD FOR D.C!
/* no comment */
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @06:30AM (23 children)
Elect an effective congress, and reduce the presidency to a strictly ceremonial role.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:45PM (14 children)
Doing that would reduce the separation of powers built into the constitution.
The unintended consequences of making congress the only one responsible for creating and passing new laws could be by far bigger and more damaging than the electoral college is argued to be. At least now congress does not get everything they want without push-back, nor does the president get everything they want without push-back.
Plus converting the presidency into a ceremonial role is similar to swatting a fly with a bazooka when the discussion was around replacing the electoral college with something else. The manner of electing the office being odd does not make the office itself invalid.
(Score: 1, Troll) by c0lo on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:54PM (3 children)
False. It will make the prime minister more powerful than the president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:28PM
You're thinking about the wrong system...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @12:49AM (1 child)
The US is not parliamentary. We have no "prime minister". And the russian troll F said nothing about replacing the president with a prime minister.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 30 2020, @01:56AM
This is why it's a Good Idea™ (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:32PM (4 children)
You should examine the War Powers act(s). The separation of powers has already been severely damaged, with far too much power being held by the President. I would love to see the War Powers bullshit challenged, and sent to the Supreme Court. An originalist judge would strike down those powers quickly.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:58PM (3 children)
I agree with you that the President has too much power to start a war without Congress.
However, you are completely wrong about the War Powers Act.
War Powers Act [history.com]
The constitution says the President directs the military and the Congress declares war. It was one of those rules that was never written down that war must be declared if you want to direct the military somewhere. Truman was the first President to say nah to that and deployed troops to Korea without approval. Then of course the same shit happened for Vietnam.
The War Powers Act LIMITS the ability for the President to send troops without approval. It was passed because Vietnam was such a shitshow they didn't want it to happen again. It says things like if there's an emergency you can deploy somewhere but it needs to be approved by Congress within a certain timeframe.
There are definitely criticism about how effective it is.
But, strengthening it is the answer, not eliminating it.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:56PM (2 children)
Not very, eh? It couldn't keep us out of Afghanistan. And besides, now the government hires out to private contractors when they want to meddle.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @06:18PM (1 child)
The law says Congress needs to approve and they did. [wikipedia.org] So the law was effective we just need a better Congress.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:57PM
People have to want one.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:51PM (4 children)
The electoral college is fine. It's the electorate that's fucked up. I mean, look at who they put on the ballot. The electoral college didn't do that...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:13PM (1 child)
There were like twenty five people on my ballot. You couldn't find a single one you liked?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:26PM
I have already stated that I have given up on all my principles to move Trump and all of Trumpism out. I paid the ransom to the Party. Sure, I can stand alone, but for what?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @12:57AM (1 child)
Yeah, just imagine how deranged the dems must have been to offer up Biden. The Biden who thinks he's running against George Bush...
Joe Biden Thinks He Is Running Against George W. Bush [conservativejournalreview.com]
One possibility is the dem elites who actually decide who they want to be the candidate, then go through the motions of a primary to fool the public, picked Biden because they knew they were not going to defeat Trump, so might as well offer up someone who it won't matter to have lose.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2020, @04:40AM
Trump is still running against Hillary.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:53PM (4 children)
Meh, strict ceremonial is a bit wasteful - why do you need one?
Arbitration (e.g. like a dungeon master) and the limited power to dissolve an unruly parliament (e.g. one that cannot reach agreement in budget approvals or the like, blocking the executive) then call fresh elections would make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:04PM (1 child)
I think Americans just need to learn how their fucking government works and realize that the President doesn't, and shouldn't, have all these powers people expect him to wield.
He's just supposed to run the various branches according to the rules the Legislature writes.
It's the Americans that try to turn him into a king....
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:35PM
That is partly right. However, the executive branch was indeed given constitutional powers and authorities. The president was never intended to be a mere puppet, manipulated by congress. On the other hand, see my post above regarding war powers. No president should have the power to unilaterally invade somewhere.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:45PM
C'mon, the Brits have a queen. Let's dress our guys up too. More colors!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:34PM
I don't want to have to vote three times a year because politicians can't get along. You can put that back where you found it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @04:09PM (2 children)
I can't remember which TEDtalk explained this.
The founding persons* did not want to have a king. They struggled with what kind of title to give to the executive branch. What title could they choose that would not convey much sense of power. Because they DON'T WANT a king. They just got away from having a king and fought a war and stopped drinking tea.
Finally they determined the correct title: President. A person to "preside" over the executive branch, a mere "presider". That is a humble enough sounding title, because who would ever bow and scrape before a humble title like "The President of the United States".
*of any gender
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:37PM (1 child)
This is also why George Washington is held in such high esteem - her could have easily become a king, but he didn't.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @07:15PM
You'll note, in my post you replied to, I did allow for the founders to be of any of the possible genders that were available choices at that time.
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.