Millions sign petition urging Electoral College to elect Hillary Clinton
312 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51357427]By 'let you do what ever you want' he meant that he's effectively untouchable because any claim against him can be fought off by an army of lawyers or through any other method of coercion that a stack of cash will by. He doesn't have to do anything, the fear is enough.[/QUOTE]
Just like Bill cosby huh
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51357330]You're asking the electoral college to completely disregard the electoral votes, and to side with ~48% of the population, while shitting on the other 47%. "for the greater good". So instead of liberals burning the streets, we can have conservatives burning the streets instead.
This election was so divisive that one side was going to get completely and utterly burned, regardless of who won. We need to get rid of this bullshit asshurt between the two parties if we're EVER going to get anything done.[/QUOTE]
disregard? the whole reason the system exists is for situations like this lol
[QUOTE=UziXxX;51357436]Just like Bill cosby huh[/QUOTE]
Just because it doesn't always work out that way doesn't mean it often does.
The bill cosby case took awhile until evidence was managed to be brought together, it also was more recent, and there were a lot more accusers.
He also wasnt near as rich and powerful as Trump
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;51356970]It's interesting that the same people who think the electoral college process is broken because it doesn't work via direct democracy are the same people who don't want direct democracy to override parliamentary sovereignty in the UK with regard to Brexit. Can't have it both ways. Hillary + Brexit or Trump + Remain. Pick your poison.[/QUOTE]
To be honest there's quite a bit of difference between trusting a group of representatives the composition of which is proportional to the repartition of political stances with deciding things based on their knowledge of the subject and their constituents' wishes, and trusting an electoral system which is a total crapshoot where people have disproportionate voting power based on their location, where your vote doesn't matter if you live in a state where the opposition has a big enough majority, and where you give voting directions to a select few people three months in advance so they have the time to make the trip by horse and then decide who gets to be the president, but not really, because they always follow the directions they were given even if it contradicts the popular vote, which kind of flies in the face of there being a purpose to electing voters instead of directly voting in the first place.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51357460]The bill cosby case took awhile until evidence was managed to be brought together[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if you're describing how a proper case is built by the prosecution.
Not saying that Clinton would've necessarily won if it were a direct democracy, a lot of people don't vote because of the aforementioned reasons and may vote otherwise, but you have to recognize that this system is pretty fucked.
And if Hillary won the electoral college vote and not the popular vote then Trump supporters would be up in arms about a rigged system. But instead Trump got the electoral vote and Hillary only got the popular vote so the system's [I]just okay[/I] now.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51357423]Let you do what you want does not imply explicit consent. He made it clear that they don't deny him because of his power. It's not an uncommon thing: in the workplace it's literally illegal because of how much of a problem it can be, and yes, that is still classified as a form of sexual harassment.
And we aren't doing that, I'm talking about how you framed your statements to imply that they're bullshit with the emphasis of the timing, in a way, passing judgement before it can get to court. That's the dismissal by implying it's immediately being done for personal gain, and that's what contributes to the state of victims often waiting to accuse, and accusing in a group right after another.[/QUOTE]
People don't establish explicit consent in their stupid and chauvinistic bragging to random business partners, they don't need to. It does prove a pretty significant scandal if you end up running for president later, though its not automatically bragging about sexual assault. Seeing a vague conversation, you need to make those assumptions yourself to make it about sexual assault. In the real world if he puckers and she puckers and they go in for a kiss the guy doesnt need to suddenly stop and ask for consent in writing.
People have body language and the insistence on clear verbal consent to take care of outlying cases and clear up ambiguity is nice but non-verbal consent continues to be lawful even in states that are in recent years getting much more stringent consent requirements. in 2005 there was (mostly still is) a stereotype in society that the man is typically the suitor who shows initial interest, and the woman is the final decider in whether or not the relationship occurs. Taking that into account, for a 70 year old man its not exactly unusual for him to say that a woman "let him" have sex with her and not mean rape. I think its kind of a self derogatory way of putting it, as if the man naturally always will be up for the relationship regardless.
Criticize trump on the basis of it being an incredibly shitty, rude and adulterous comment but making it about sexual assault is just disingenuous.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51356780]This would be probably the quickest way to have SHTF. Seriously, I don't think the electorates want to be lynched for pissing off the people they are meant to represent.[/QUOTE]
but, for the people who want the electoral college to go away, IE probably the people who think clinton should have won on popular vote, then this would be a brilliant strategy to get people up in arms to remove it.
TBH I'm ok with the way things are right now. I'll only fear if it actually gets bad, like terrible legislation or something that affects me or any of my peers.
This is stupid. What this petition is basically saying is that your votes don't matter if they don't turn out the way some people want them to? That if you don't like something then everyone has to bend to your will and change it? Accept the fact that Hillary lost and take it in grace. Show people that democrats aren't a bunch of babies that throw tantrums when they lose.
[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;51357661]This is stupid. What this petition is basically saying is that your votes don't matter if they don't turn out the way some people want them to? That if you don't like something then everyone has to bend to your will and change it? Accept the fact that Hillary lost and take it in grace. Show people that democrats aren't a bunch of babies that throw tantrums when they lose.[/QUOTE]
A little too late for that one. I had a girl in my math class wear all black the day after the election because she was "mourning America" and told us how she was crying so much all night. The overreactions from this election are more entertaining than the year leading up to it.
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51357673]A little too late for that one. I had a girl in my math class wear all black the day after the election because she was "mourning America" and told us how she was crying so much all night. The overreactions from this election are more entertaining that the year leading up to it.[/QUOTE]
You should have told her every tear makes Trump's wall one inch higher
The electoral college is badly broken, and has been broken since it stopped growing with the population in 1913. It needs to overhauled, or preferably even scrapped in its entirety in favor of a more direct democracy utilizing something like runoff voting systems.
[I]That said,[/I] doing it [B]right now?[/B] That would be fairly catastrophic, I believe. Doing this [I]in direct protest[/I] of Donald Trump, who [I]was[/I] democratically elected under the laws our land and the rules of our democracy (however broken they may be) would be seen as an absolute affront to democracy by the ~60,000,000 who voted for him. It would lend actual legitimacy to his "rigged election" narrative, inciting massive civil unrest, and shattering faith in the Democratic party for many, many years for failing to honor the results of the election and turn the presidency over peacefully.
Getting rid of the electoral college is something that needs to happen during a president's active term, not immediately following an unpopular election.
Though I'm as concerned about a Trump presidency and a red congress as much as any of the rest of you, we [I]must[/I] honor the results of the election for our democracy to have any value whatsoever. Failing to do so lends increasing weight to the words of those who would seek to compromise it for their own gain, such as Trump himself attempted in the weeks leading up to his shocking victory.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51357744]The electoral college is badly broken, and has been broken since it stopped growing with the population in 1913. It needs to overhauled, or preferably even scrapped in its entirety in favor of a more direct democracy utilizing something like runoff voting systems.
[I]That said,[/I] doing it [B]right now?[/B] That would be fairly catastrophic, I believe. Doing this [I]in direct protest[/I] of Donald Trump, who [I]was[/I] democratically elected under the laws our land and the rules of our democracy (however broken they may be) would be seen as an absolute affront to democracy by the ~60,000,000 who voted for him. It would lend actual legitimacy to his "rigged election" narrative, inciting massive civil unrest, and shattering faith in the Democratic party for many, many years for failing to honor the results of the election and turn the presidency over peacefully.
Getting rid of the electoral college is something that needs to happen during a president's active term, not immediately following an unpopular election.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you yanks have triple blue for a couple of years? Why wasn't electoral college reform talked about then?
[QUOTE=Goberfish;51357756]Didn't you yanks have triple blue for a couple of years? Why wasn't electoral college reform talked about then?[/QUOTE]
Like, a triple blue presidency? Not for quite a while. I think we may have had a blue house, senate, and presidency for the first couple years of Obama's first term, but my memory is fairly shoddy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Electoral college reform has been talked about for as long as I can remember, however. At the very least, it's been a recurring topic since the 2000 election. Al Gore won the popular vote, lost the electoral vote by a nose. More's the shame, too, because we got Bush instead, and we all know how that turned out.
Anything before that is before my political memory, but this is hardly a [B]new[/B] discussion. We've got, at a minimum, sixteen solid years of calls for electoral college reform. This election may have [I]renewed[/I] those calls, perhaps, but it's not accurate to say that it's [I]only just now[/I] that we've all started caring.
As to why we didn't talk about it more heavily during Obama's first couple years in office? I guess it just seemed a low priority. Events like this are supposed to be quite uncommon, and we had more pressing issues at hand with healthcare reform. It just so happens that the electoral college bunked twice in a very short period. This is the second election in the last twenty years that the Democrats have lost by the electoral college, despite winning the popular vote. That's fairly significant, to say the least! Obviously, Trump isn't going to be calling for any reforms of it. In fact, I'd imagine [I]no[/I] Republican would, because it favors their party. Perhaps our next Democratic president will make it a priority, however? Unlikely, but possible.
Didn't the electoral college actually do what it was INTENDED to do this election?
IIRC it's meant as a way to normalize the votes across a country with such a diverse population density, so that huge cities and super densely populated states don't just drown out smaller, less populated states.
[QUOTE=SurfLapras;51356743]There's a difference between being a sore loser and fearing for your life.[/QUOTE]
Anyone genuinely "fearing for their life" fell for some epic fearmongering, good lord.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;51357803]Didn't the electoral college actually do what it was INTENDED to do this election?
IIRC it's meant as a way to normalize the votes across a country with such a diverse population density, so that huge cities and super densely populated states don't just drown out smaller, less populated states.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that it's become increasingly exaggerated. This worked out fairly in theory originally, because the electoral college originally scaled based on population. It gave lower population states a small handicap, because you had a minimum number of electoral votes you were guaranteed, but it did still scale with population as state population grew, so in theory it should effectively worked out okay in the long run.
This stopped in 1913, however, when the number of house representatives was locked (this is the number that was used in the electoral vote). With a static congress, the number of votes became static. In the last 103 years, we've obviously had some pretty fuckin' explosive population growth. Because the electoral college votes became static, while population growth skyrocketed and demographics shifted more heavily to key population centers, the small handicap given to more rural states became [I]dramatically[/I] exaggerated.
These smaller states have much, much more voting power than was ever intended as a result of the electoral college. With every passing year, the results get a little more skewed. To demonstrate the silliness of this system: if 99% of the population of the United States decided to pack up and move to California, California would still only have 55 electoral votes, and the remaining 483 votes would be divided among the 1% of the population living in deserted ghost towns throughout the rest of the country.
Untying electoral votes from population growth broke the system. For some reason, we just never went back to fix it. It was meant to be a minor handicap, not a full-on equalizing force, and certainly not a force that made rural states [I]more[/I] powerful than big states.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51357795]Like, a triple blue presidency?[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/P4YEaH4.png[/IMG]
If I'm reading it right Democrats had everything from 2011-2013.
A U.S. major political party is a huge machine. Surely they could've pushed for electoral reform if they wished to? I guess it's a risky thing to push for a as a first-term president, but then again so was health care reform
[QUOTE=Goberfish;51357841][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/P4YEaH4.png[/IMG]
If I'm reading it right Democrats had everything from 2011-2013.
A U.S. major political party is a huge machine. Surely they could've pushed for electoral reform if they wished to? I guess it's a risky thing to push for a as a first-term president, but then again so was health care reform[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I get what you're saying now. That would have actually been from 2008 to 2010: the first two years of Obama's presidency. We probably [I]could[/I] have (maybe. That's a big issue, and two years ain't long), but it just wasn't a huge priority at the time. We were in the thick of healthcare reforms, and working to pull troops out of Iraq. The national national debate was most heavily focused on those issues. Ten years after Al Gore's defeat, electoral reform just didn't seem a huge priority, I suppose. Go figure, we pay the most attention to the flaws in the electoral college when there's a fuckup between the popular vote and the electoral vote. It just so happens that we got hit with it twice in less than twenty years, and it's likely it'll happen again. As time goes on, the electoral college skew towards rural states grows more pronounce. While there's no intentional bias in that system, it does of course tend to primarily benefit Republicans due to their increased popularity in rural areas.
I must say that the only part I find funny is how some people are very accepting of the electoral college not going the way of the popular vote, but would find this a democratic disaster. I mean I think this is silly because it both isn't going to accomplish anything, and second, and most importantly, it's adding just another farce on top of the farce that is the electoral college, but it's as much a part of the electoral college as its undemocratic skew.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51357744]The electoral college is badly broken, and has been broken since it stopped growing with the population in 1913. It needs to overhauled, or preferably even scrapped in its entirety in favor of a more direct democracy utilizing something like runoff voting systems.
[I]That said,[/I] doing it [B]right now?[/B] That would be fairly catastrophic, I believe. Doing this [I]in direct protest[/I] of Donald Trump, who [I]was[/I] democratically elected under the laws our land and the rules of our democracy (however broken they may be) would be seen as an absolute affront to democracy by the ~60,000,000 who voted for him. It would lend actual legitimacy to his "rigged election" narrative, inciting massive civil unrest, and shattering faith in the Democratic party for many, many years for failing to honor the results of the election and turn the presidency over peacefully.
Getting rid of the electoral college is something that needs to happen during a president's active term, not immediately following an unpopular election.
Though I'm as concerned about a Trump presidency and a red congress as much as any of the rest of you, we [I]must[/I] honor the results of the election for our democracy to have any value whatsoever. Failing to do so lends increasing weight to the words of those who would seek to compromise it for their own gain, such as Trump himself attempted in the weeks leading up to his shocking victory.[/QUOTE]
But it wouldn't be against the laws of our land, democracy, etc. They're just pledges, they can vote for whoever they want which is intentional to help ward off corruption. The tools are specifically there to be used.
[QUOTE=pentium;51356736]Give it up you lost. lol
Try again in four years.[/QUOTE]
*protestors riot* "lol salty liberals, what a bunch of babies. Why can't you protest peacefully?
*millions sign a petition* " lol salty liberals, just give up"
What the fuck do people have to do to make any of you happy? This isn't just because they don't like Trump, this is because the new administration is promising its first actions will be to take away rights that these people spent decades fighting for. What the actual living fuck do you want these people to do? Just give up and take it? Then you'll just make fun of liberals for being pushovers too. There's never any winning with you fucking people. You just want to lord over others and act like you're better than them, with no regards to what they're currently feeling, may be experiencing in the future, or how this administration may affect their lives. You just want an excuse to gloat. But don't worry, its the liberals that need to stop being so condescending,and need to learn to work with you. [B]You're[/B] never the problem. Its never your fault, anybody but you. Fucking hypocrites.
Not all of this is aimed at you, pentium. Some, but not all.
I am fine with the left pushing for petition to bring into question about the election. This is how progress gets made. The more scrutiny, the better. How else will a more perfect is expected to come about?
In fact, do all you can through the system to keep pressure on Trump. If he fucks up, keep him accountable.
[QUOTE=The golden;51357951]The LGBT community, which often faces daily threats of violence and hatred, would disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
It's nothing compared to the things people are posting on social media. For reals, I could make a post about how I walked passed someone who was wearing a trump hat and say that I feared for my life and I'd get consolation.
[QUOTE=The golden;51357951]The LGBT community, which often faces daily threats of violence and hatred, would disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
"Oh look, Donald trump is elected, guess it's time to kill some gays!"
Yea, this is happening alright.
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51357994]"Oh look, Donald trump is elected, guess it's time to kill some gays!"
Yea, this is happening alright.[/QUOTE]
More likely mocking and laughing at their meltdowns because of Trump winning.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51358041]More likely mocking and laughing at their meltdowns because of Trump winning.[/QUOTE]
Liberals made him out to be Hitler and now they all genuinely believe he's Hitler.
After all the scandals from Hillarys side, I wonder how in the fuck people still can support her?
You guys are wierd as shit if you want to support a corrupt puppet.
Oh, and Mr Hairdue isn't any better either. but still he won't have you killed for opposing him...
[QUOTE=pentium;51356754]More like fearmongering. The sky isn't going to fall on these people because Trump is going to the white house. This is like when people threatened to leave Alberta when an NDP government was elected in.[/QUOTE]
More like you have no idea what the hell is going on and clearly haven't been paying attention to the election if you think this.
Trump is a demagogue who uses the most inciteful rhetoric he can to rile up the hate in his supporters against everyone from gays and Muslims to Hispanics and his critics. When asked if he thought he'd gone too far in his rhetoric, he just responded with, "No. I won." He's not calling them off or telling them to tone things down... and that's something to be concerned over for obvious reasons. He's also an unashamed sexual predator (who bragged about it no less and got caught), he's incredibly dishonest (do I need to supply a link detailing how many lies he's told?), and he's only out to benefit himself. There's nothing remotely redeeming about him or that makes him the "lesser of two evils" between him and Clinton. The false equivalency bullshit of "they're both equal" does not work; he is objectively worse than Clinton, as has been demonstrated I don't know how many times now by I don't know how many different people.
So as far as "giving up" goes, that's not going to happen. We will never accept him, we will not accept the electoral college (especially considering that this is the FIFTH time this has happened now in our nation's history; he lost the popular vote, the majority of the American people do not want him, deal with it), and that's how simple it is. Sorry.
[editline]12 November 2016[/editline]
Also:
[QUOTE=pentium;51356808]I lived through the reign of Stephen Harper for a decade. They are going to get trump for four years tops.
Sit down, buckle up and hold on.[/QUOTE]
Do not believe a word of this nonsense. Stephen Harper is not Donald Trump, the cabinet he's looking to assemble is already looking terrible, and unless you have a crystal ball that magically reveals the future then you have no idea how long he'll be in office for. If there's any lesson to be learned from 2016 with Brexit and this election it's that literally anything's possible, and it pays to be prepared for the worst possible outcomes.
Keep protesting and fighting back, do not give these people an inch. Like Judas pointed out earlier:
[QUOTE=Judas;51356841]the future vice president of the united states of america tried to divert AIDS funding to conversion therapy for homosexuals[/QUOTE]
All the other shit aside, that's yet another bad sign of what to expect out of this administration. And we also have to worry about a Republican-dominated Congress now too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.