Electoral college members inundated by harassing phone calls, emails, and death threats - Polidicks

i can see hollywood actors being more effective than normal people anyway.

[QUOTE=FFStudios;51547955]the political climate in the United States is disintegrating. I feel like we are on the very precipice of some kind of revolution. something has got to give. I strongly believe I will witness the total overhaul of this country in my lifetime[/QUOTE] I really don't think so, the American populous is content enough and will only get off it's ass and do something when shit really hits the fan. And even then I have my doubts.

[QUOTE=Higurashi;51548059]I can't see how people think threatening the electors will turn the outcome into their favor. More certainly that it will result in the opposite of what they want. Also, I think all this drama about the 'influence of the election' is pretty hypocritical if you look at how often the US were involved in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change]changing other countries regimes[/url] making it often end up even worse.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine that threats are coming in bilaterally.

The electoral college really needs to elect Donald Trump, to show that democracy still works. America can't afford the precedent of having Electors voting against who the people of their state voted for. Electors in states where the Democrats won need to vote Democrat, while Electors in states where the Republicans won need to vote Republican. Donald Trump may be awful, but that's democracy.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51547893]No, but they should turn faithless based on the fact that trump shows every sign of being an awful leader, easy to manipulate, and prone to quick over-reactions via tantrum and shitposts.[/QUOTE] Basically this. If they fail to account for this and they vote for him anyway, then that's it. That'll be the final proof that they are in fact an archaic institution that needs to be done away with. If they aren't doing their jobs properly, then there's no use in keeping the system around any longer-- popular vote arguments aside. I don't blame these people for being radical about this. The future of our country is at stake, and the world is going to be impacted right along with us. There's no reason to allow this man to become president, whether we're discussing his clear conflicts of interest with regards to his businesses that make him ineligible to his insider and self-enriching behavior. We're talking about a man who is going to appoint a well-known climate change denier to the head of the EPA. He's going to have an Exxon CEO in his administration. He's a proven liar and cheat, he has no respect for anybody except himself, he's not going to "drain the swamp" as has been claimed (he's actually making it worse), etc. You have to draw the line somewhere and be willing to take a confrontational stand against this nonsense eventually. Otherwise, you're just making it too easy for him to get in. And that's unacceptable given what we're faced with if that happens. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BF;51549367]The electoral college really needs to elect Donald Trump, to show that democracy still works. America can't afford the precedent of having Electors voting against who the people of their state voted for. Electors in states where the Democrats won need to vote Democrat, while Electors in states where the Republicans won need to vote Republican. Donald Trump may be awful, but that's democracy.[/QUOTE] Also, we need to change this. This attitude can't be allowed to keep flying either. Clinton defeated Trump by more than 2.8 million votes, the majority of the American people voted for her over him, and that's that. She has no conflicts of interest (he does), she's a typical establishment candidate (whereas he, instead of "draining the swamp", is only going to make things worse as he enriches himself and his backers), she's proven herself capable of political leadership roles and has years of political experience (he has neither; this is a man who throws fits on Twitter whenever anybody criticizes him, to such an extent to where during the campaign season his staff basically took that ability away from him because he couldn't keep his damn mouth shut), and so on. There's a million arguments for why he should not be elected. Democracy should be designed to work in such a way that it can stop a crisis from happening when it's evident that it's going to if nothing is done. In fact, that's one of the arguments for the existence of the Electoral College in the first place: to prevent people like Trump from being elected. Again, if it fails to do that, then there's truly no point to its existence anymore, and it should be destroyed.

[QUOTE=BF;51549367]The electoral college really needs to elect Donald Trump, to show that democracy still works. America can't afford the precedent of having Electors voting against who the people of their state voted for. Electors in states where the Democrats won need to vote Democrat, while Electors in states where the Republicans won need to vote Republican. Donald Trump may be awful, but that's democracy.[/QUOTE] Just because people have the perception that this is a democracy doesn't mean it is. If that illusion is ripped away, maybe there would be enough outrage to get an actual democracy put in place. But as it stands now, the Electoral College exists and they are facing a situation which they arguably exist to prevent. So, they either they stop Trump, and the system is likely dismantled for future elections as a result of public outrage; or they do nothing and the system proves it's basically worthless anyway. I fully expect they will elect Trump though, for we've gotten this far on people taking the easy path; the expected path, rather than standing up for a better path. And while they may be blamed the most, for people have short memories, they share the smallest portion of the blame in my opinion.

[QUOTE=BF;51549367]The electoral college really needs to elect Donald Trump, to show that democracy still works. America can't afford the precedent of having Electors voting against who the people of their state voted for. Electors in states where the Democrats won need to vote Democrat, while Electors in states where the Republicans won need to vote Republican. Donald Trump may be awful, but that's democracy.[/QUOTE] Except that's not actually how our country is designed to work. Them voting against Trump is not only within bounds, it's what they're arguably supposed to do. It wouldn't crush democracy to vote someone else in when the people voted Hillary.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51549418]Except that's not actually how our country is designed to work. Them voting against Trump is not only within bounds, [B]it's what they're arguably supposed to do.[/B] It wouldn't crush democracy to vote someone else in when the people voted Hillary.[/QUOTE] lol no. in many states this is outright illegal. the purpose of the electoral college was, back before the existence of the internet, to create an organized and simplified way of voting rather than try to collect a vote from each person in the country-- a task deemed pretty much impossible back in the 17/18 hundreds.

[QUOTE=The golden;51549458]The majority of the voterbase did not vote for Trump. Hillary actually got more votes. Trump being elected is not democracy at all.[/QUOTE] The word 'democracy' is not the same thing as the word 'popular vote'.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549470]The word 'democracy' is not the same thing as the word 'popular vote'.[/QUOTE] Explain to me how a system that disenfranchises millions of voters is in any way democratic.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549470]The word 'democracy' is not the same thing as the word 'popular vote'.[/QUOTE] [quote]Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy[/url] The popular vote is the will of the majority.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549470]The word 'democracy' is not the same thing as the word 'popular vote'.[/QUOTE] Democracy doesn't make people's votes less equal than others.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549446]lol no. in many states this is outright illegal. the purpose of the electoral college was, back before the existence of the internet, to create an organized and simplified way of voting rather than try to collect a vote from each person in the country-- a task deemed pretty much impossible back in the 17/18 hundreds.[/QUOTE] how come only trump supporters think this?

Now I have no love for Trump... But can you even [i]imagine[/i] what would happen if Clinton was seemingly 'Bailed out' by a roomful of people, using the fact that their votes mean more than the actual results? For a second time this election cycle? After her opponent basically won on the position of "My opponent is crooked to the point of having most of the system in her pocket, elect me to either fix that or prove it without a shadow of a doubt"? Because you [i]know[/i] that's how it's going to be spun if it goes down that way. And, looking at the two choices, I'm not entirely sure which is the bigger powder keg.

[QUOTE=Pennywise;51549519]Now I have no love for Trump... But can you even [i]imagine[/i] what would happen if Clinton was seemingly 'Bailed out' by a roomful of people, using the fact that their votes mean more than the actual results? For a second time this election cycle? After her opponent basically won on the position of "My opponent is crooked to the point of having most of the system in her pocket, elect me to either fix that or prove it without a shadow of a doubt"? Because you [i]know[/i] that's how it's going to be spun if it goes down that way. And, looking at the two choices, I'm not entirely sure which is the bigger powder keg.[/QUOTE] Honestly at this point I don't think anyone is going to do anything big, no matter who wins the election. There'll be some assholes who vandalize stuff or threaten people or pick fights, but probably nothing worse than what's already been happening this entire election cycle anyway. People'll just bitch and bitch and bitch and then they'll forget about it until the next election.

Terrorize and send death threats to your fellow Americans...that is how democracy works.

[QUOTE=The golden;51549529]Because their candidate won. Had Hillary won the election then Trump supporters would be calling for the dismantlement of the electoral college. Right now they're loving it because it's about to elect their candidate which by all definitions of democracy lost the election.[/QUOTE] I'd be highly doubtful that either side wouldn't act the same way if their candidate won or lost.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549446]lol no. in many states this is outright illegal. the purpose of the electoral college was, back before the existence of the internet, to create an organized and simplified way of voting rather than try to collect a vote from each person in the country-- a task deemed pretty much impossible back in the 17/18 hundreds.[/QUOTE] "lol no" The electoral college doesn't exist because it was too hard to count votes, [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/"]it exists because of the fear of the majority voting for a tyrannical candidate,[/URL] which was much more likely to happen because information wasn't as widely spread hundreds of years ago. As in, it's not outright illegal to change electoral vote, it's supposed to happen.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51547941]If Trump still wins, it means the electoral college isn't serving the purpose they were created for.[/QUOTE] So you'd rather a bunch of uneducated idiots(the general public) elect the president? It is often said that a Democracy works best when all those who vote are educated enough to make a decision. While this is a very appealing idea, never has the general populace of this country been well educated enough to handle it. Socialism is also bad because then the upper class becomes the government. [editline]18th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;51549498][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy[/URL] The popular vote is the will of the majority.[/QUOTE] The popular vote is [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/URL] and(in some cases) [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy [/URL]

[QUOTE=Pennywise;51549519]Now I have no love for Trump... But can you even [i]imagine[/i] what would happen if Clinton was seemingly 'Bailed out' by a roomful of people, using the fact that their votes mean more than the actual results? For a second time this election cycle? After her opponent basically won on the position of "My opponent is crooked to the point of having most of the system in her pocket, elect me to either fix that or prove it without a shadow of a doubt"? Because you [i]know[/i] that's how it's going to be spun if it goes down that way. And, looking at the two choices, I'm not entirely sure which is the bigger powder keg.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure they could vote for someone entirely different; it doesn't have to be Clinton or Trump. Of course, that's even more unlikely.

[QUOTE=space1;51549652]So you'd rather a bunch of uneducated idiots(the general public) elect the president?[/QUOTE] well you trust them to elect your senators and house representatives, not to mention virtually every position in local and state government (including governors)

[QUOTE=space1;51549652]So you'd rather a bunch of [B]uneducated idiots(the general public)[/B] elect the president?[/QUOTE]Yes, space1, I'm sure you, a ~16 year old kid, are [I]way[/I] more intelligent and [I]intellectual[/I] than everyone else. God, if only all the other voters were as [I]intellectual[/I] as you, right? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Rude" - Sgt Doom))[/highlight]

You can criticize the electoral college all you like but when you begin harassing and threatening its members that's when you've clearly crossed the line. Also I wonder, are people getting heated about the electoral college because they've always been critical of the electoral college or is it because they're just upset their preferred candidate lost?

I'm not gonna say it's not a line cross or whatever but people shouldn't be acting surprised. Death threats have sadly become routine, and have been for years. We've allowed it to continue and continue unpunished for so long that saying "I'm going to murder you and your family" complete with gruesome descriptions is on the same level as saying "I don't like you." What makes electors particularly immune? It's something all of us have to deal with as soon as we gain the slightest bit of notoriety.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549446]lol no. in many states this is outright illegal. the purpose of the electoral college was, back before the existence of the internet, to create an organized and simplified way of voting rather than try to collect a vote from each person in the country-- a task deemed pretty much impossible back in the 17/18 hundreds.[/QUOTE] The Electoral College's votes are not constitutionally bound to any candidate, they vote for what they believe is the best candidate, with the state's vote weighing heavily into that decision. Most of the time it's no big deal, so electors vote the way the state voted. In the Federalist Papers it was also written that electors would have the responsibility of preventing an unqualified person from taking office. This is where the moral dilemma comes in, is Trump qualified to hold office, or should he be voted against? [I]"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." - Alexander Hamilton[/I]

[QUOTE=zizzleplix;51549709] Also I wonder, are people getting heated about the electoral college because they've always been critical of the electoral college or is it because they're just upset their preferred candidate lost?[/QUOTE] As someone who's been critical of the electoral college for a fair number of years now; I don't really care why people are so upset with it, I'm just glad they are. That being said, I'm sure more than a few people are only beginning to criticize it because of this particular election.

[QUOTE=space1;51549652] The popular vote is [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/URL] and(in some cases) [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy [/URL][/QUOTE] I can use wikipedia too [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51549752]The Electoral College's votes are not constitutionally bound to any candidate, they vote for what they believe is the best candidate, with the state's vote weighing heavily into that decision. Most of the time it's no big deal, so electors vote the way the state voted. In the Federalist Papers it was also written that electors would have the responsibility of preventing an unqualified person from taking office. This is where the moral dilemma comes in, is Trump qualified to hold office, or should he be voted against? [I]"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." - Alexander Hamilton[/I][/QUOTE] Trump is most certainly[I] not[/I] qualified to be president. His degrading, vulgar behavior both public and private as well as his smoke and mirrors of a business empire that was built primarily because of his father handing it to him and refusing to pay any contractors he hired shows the lack of commitment and honor to follow through with a deal and his numerous conflicts of interest with both his family having active influence in his administration despite holding the family business and a refusal to hold it in a blind trust which puts him at the edge of violating the Constitution. I can go on, but the man is clearly not suited for office at all. I despise Hillary Clinton more but at the very least she is not an idiot like this man.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51549512]Democracy doesn't make people's votes less equal than others.[/QUOTE] Nor [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51549752]The Electoral College's votes are not constitutionally bound to any candidate, they vote for what they believe is the best candidate, with the state's vote weighing heavily into that decision. Most of the time it's no big deal, so electors vote the way the state voted. In the Federalist Papers it was also written that electors would have the responsibility of preventing an unqualified person from taking office. This is where the moral dilemma comes in, is Trump qualified to hold office, or should he be voted against? [I]"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." - Alexander Hamilton[/I][/QUOTE] That's really the question here: Do the electors (much like 47% of people that actually voted or whatever) believe that Trump is a viable candidate? Death threats against our fellow Americans is the opposite direction to head.