AspieUtah wrote:
BirdInFlight wrote:
It's still interesting to note that technically this exists even if it would never happen, for all the reasons stated.
True. But, I wonder if the ability to vote against the electoral college is, in practice, a two-month fail-safe measure to protect against a president-elect who goes on an intellectual bender immediately after the election, but before the inauguration.
Probably same reason the president isn't in office til Jan it took weeks or months to cross the conttry by horse to D.C. Otherwise they'd likely been in office the next day.
Stuff use to take longer to do.
There's been s few cases where electors voted a different way then their state did and it didn't change the outcome other the. Some states made it illegal.
Mean what this thread suggests is so undemocratic. That people from California or New York or other libal dominated states are suggesting that other states electors ignore the will of the people they there to represent and instead vote how California wants. It's like CNN. Telling senators to vote against their people's interests. As they told CNN, we represent the people from our state, we do as they voted not how we or others want.
Imagine if California electors decided to change California vote to trump.
My state is blue and if I was an elector no matter how much I despise Clinton I'd vote for her. It's not my vote it's the hundreds of thousands of people i there to represent vote.
That's how a republic works, the USA is a republic you should have been taught this in school.
Thank god I finished school before liberals turned it from education to brainwashing. The stuff I hear kids say their teachers taught them now is crazy batshit lies
Last edited by sly279 on 11 Nov 2016, 7:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.