What's new
By:

Hillary Clinton takes another L

22fbba569d9bc9e5ce7bd476754bbe12.jpg
 
I know electors have cast votes for the other guy and even the wrong guy completely (one of them voted for "John Ewards" when Edwards was running as VP),but I would be curious to know how often electors cast their vote different than who they are pledged to. Was this year about normal, low, or high for changed votes?
 
LogGrad98 said:
I know electors have cast votes for the other guy and even the wrong guy completely (one of them voted for "John Ewards" when Edwards was running as VP),but I would be curious to know how often electors cast their vote different than who they are pledged to. Was this year about normal, low, or high for changed votes?
Click to expand...

heard onf ox. it is a historical high or something! dont recall if it was total, or for 1 person orso
 
On behalf of the New York Times, HuffpoS, the Wash Post and all liars everywhere, we would like to award That Harvard professor dweeb that thought he had enough electors to flip and riled up the liberal press with unfounded hope, the Hillary Clinton/Brian Williams fake news award of the week. Thanks for pushing that MSM, but as usual, your narrative was total ****. Not news.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
On behalf of the New York Times, HuffpoS, the Wash Post and all liars everywhere, we would like to award That Harvard professor dweeb that thought he had enough electors to flip and riled up the liberal press with unfounded hope, the Hillary Clinton/Brian Williams fake news award of the week. Thanks for pushing that MSM, but as usual, your narrative was total shiite. Not news.
Click to expand...

The media is the Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel for liberals an Hillary supporters.
 
Kind of the same loss.

Hillary conceded the election and never questioned Trump as the President-elect.

Poor winners continuing to be poor winners.
 
Gameface said:
Kind of the same loss.

Hillary conceded the election and never questioned Trump as the President-elect.

Poor winners continuing to be poor winners.
Click to expand...

A trumped up "fake news" story pushed by the "poor" winners and losers of each side. People like drama and that is what the media sold to them.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I know electors have cast votes for the other guy and even the wrong guy completely (one of them voted for "John Ewards" when Edwards was running as VP),but I would be curious to know how often electors cast their vote different than who they are pledged to. Was this year about normal, low, or high for changed votes?
Click to expand...

Like dutch said, this was historically high. Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors

You can see this year was the highest since 1912. And in 1912 it was because the VP candidate died so 8 people voted for a different VP instead.

In 1896 it was again with regards to a VP candidate. (The presidential candidate was on the ballot for two different parties, with two different VPs.)

In 1872 it was again due to the VP candidate's death before the electoral college vote.

In 1836 it was again a VP candidate (but not his death).

In 1828 it was again regarding a VP candidate.

In 1812 six electors switch from Madison to Clinton (no relation).

So really you have to go back to 1812 for any presidential candidate to have more faithless electors than in this current election! And this election's total number of 7 faithless presidential electors is the most since 1796, which was before the 12th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).

So yeah, any way you look at it this was historic.
 
colton said:
Like dutch said, this was historically high. Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors

You can see this year was the highest since 1912. And in 1912 it was because the VP candidate died so 8 people voted for a different VP instead.

In 1896 it was again with regards to a VP candidate. (The presidential candidate was on the ballot for two different parties, with two different VPs.)

In 1872 it was again due to the VP candidate's death before the electoral college vote.

In 1836 it was again a VP candidate (but not his death).

In 1828 it was again regarding a VP candidate.

In 1812 six electors switch from Madison to Clinton (no relation).

So really you have to go back to 1812 for any presidential candidate to have more faithless electors than in this current election! And this election's total number of 7 faithless presidential electors is the most since 1796, which was before the 12th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).

So yeah, any way you look at it this was historic.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the research. That's crazy.
 
Stoked said:
IMO, electors should be bound to their states vote.
Click to expand...
I agree. And if that were the case then they would be unnecessary right?
Just have the election back in November and whoever wins wins. No need to Wait until today to find out "for sure " who won.
 
Stoked said:
IMO, electors should be bound to their states vote.
Click to expand...

fishonjazz said:
I agree. And if that were the case then they would be unnecessary right?
Just have the election back in November and whoever wins wins. No need to Wait until today to find out "for sure " who won.
Click to expand...

While I agree with this, one of the historic reasons for the electoral college was that the founding fathers didn't trust the general populace to vote for the president so electors would do the actual voting so they could change the outcome should the majority vote for Mickey Mouse or what have you.
 
LogGrad98 said:
While I agree with this, one of the historic reasons for the electoral college was that the founding fathers didn't trust the general populace to vote for the president so electors would do the actual voting so they could change the outcome should the majority vote for Donald Trump or what have you.
Click to expand...
True
(Fixed)
 
Stoked said:
IMO, electors should be bound to their states vote.
Click to expand...

IMO states should each decide an your opinion should have no consideration outside your state of reference. Defectors from your state rules should be shot in Utah we are a winner takes all state an if a electoral defects are vote they should get the chair.
 
Gameface said:
Kind of the same loss.

Hillary conceded the election and never questioned Trump as the President-elect.

Poor winners continuing to be poor winners.
Click to expand...

This is a joke right?

Its more like the losers are being poor losers. Hillary may have pretended to concede the election, but ever since Trump won its been nothing but crying about Russians, the electoral college, popular vote, riots, protests, etc..

Where are you getting this poor winners thing from? And why cant you see the left is being poor losers, and why dont you say anything about that?

You are so delusional and on the wrong side of this, its hilarious. Maybe you should quit digging, that hole is getting pretty big you are in.
 
Computer said:
This is a joke right?

Its more like the losers are being poor losers. Hillary may have pretended to concede the election, but ever since Trump won its been nothing but crying about Russians, the electoral college, popular vote, riots, protests, etc..

Where are you getting this poor winners thing from? And why cant you see the left is being poor losers, and why dont you say anything about that?

You are so delusional and on the wrong side of this, its hilarious. Maybe you should quit digging, that hole is getting pretty big you are in.
Click to expand...

nah, the neoliberals are being sore losers (and they wont change a smidgen). The true left knew this was going to happen the second Bernie didn't get the nomination, and they're actively trying to either get Keith Ellison that DNC Chair spot, or start working on making a new political party to the left of the Dems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top