[P]Federal Court may have just handed 2020 over to Trump already with Electoral College decision.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Although 30 states have rules on their books that require their electorates to vote with the Popular vote, a federal court just ruled that it is unconstitutional to enforce, and they can promise to be loyal to their party instead if they so wish.

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961

To make things worse, 30 of our state legislatures are currently controlled by Republicans, and the state legislatures are who are responsible for the electoral college, meaning they very well could stack their electoral college with people vowing loyalty to party rather than the popular vote thus guaranteeing those states vote for Trump regardless of election results. For this to change, Democrats would have to win state legislatures in 2020, but even if they did, they would not have those representatives in office to vote during the 2020 election itself. Local elections are everything here it seems.

https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-state-politics-governors-2019.html

Yes, there are rules in place for the electoral college, but this federal court ruling means no one has to abide by them. Due to the current Republican playbook, it is highly unlikely if they have the majority that they would abide by them out of " consideration" to fair play as they are underhanded as it gets at this point as it is. So they have stacked the federal courts with judges who rule in favor of gerrymandering and party loyalty and with those gerrymandered districts in play to keep their legislatures and can use those legislatures to effect who is president so this makes it an extremely difficult road ahead for anyone to be able to change this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/06/this-week-republican-senate-went-nuclear-again-now-it-can-speed-up-confirming-conservative-judges/?noredirect=on

If democrats do ever manage to get back congress and the white house they are going to have to change the makeup of the bench all the way down just to be able to act to start fixing any of this or their efforts will be futile. They are going to spend all the time they have in office just trying to correct what is broke, it will be difficult for them to have time to actually do any of these things they wanted to do in the first place. But hey that has been the Republicans plan all along here right, to break so much as fast as they can that fixing that is all anyone will ever be able to do while in office so they are left spinning their wheels.

Lil devils x:
they very well could stack their electoral college with people vowing loyalty to party rather than the popular vote thus guaranteeing those states vote for Trump regardless of election results.

If this happens, chaos will ensue. Real fuckin' chaos with blood and violence. People will be killed. And considering the fact that the chaos will be brought by Republicans trying to kill democracy, they will be on the receiving end of that violence. So they better think long and hard how they wish to proceed.

My face when #LaResistance! gets exactly what they've been crying over for two years, completely ignorant of its potential ramifications and defaming anyone who warns caution, and finally figuring out the Democratic party has been not-at-all-subtly sabotaging its own state election prospects since 2015:

image

So I mean, whats the popular vote even for? I can only hope it accidentally blows up in Republican's faces and that the right electors are anti-Trump.

But the US is anything but a Democracy.

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for? I can only hope it accidentally blows up in Republican's faces and that the right electors are anti-Trump.

What's funny is this case was born out of a nationwide effort by electors to cast faithless ballots and deprive Trump of 270 electoral votes, thereby invoking the Twelfth Amendment. They (attempted to) cast their electoral ballots for Kasich, opposed to Trump, to make him eligible for the House vote.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for? I can only hope it accidentally blows up in Republican's faces and that the right electors are anti-Trump.

What's funny is this case was born out of a nationwide effort by electors to cast faithless ballots and deprive Trump of 270 electoral votes, thereby invoking the Twelfth Amendment. They (attempted to) cast their electoral ballots for Kasich, opposed to Trump, to make him eligible for the House vote.

What really made me laugh about that whole effort is that not only was it doomed from the start, but only two electors were faithless against Trump, while more than twice that number (five, wasn't it) defected from Clinton.

I saw people on social media, convinced that either Trump would be blocked by the electors or that Obama would suspend the results of the election. As if the latter is something a president can actually do.

I thought it was the Democrats who were actively campaigning for electorates to break with their states' wishes to elect Hillary instead of Trump last time around. I don't like how this ruling prevents individual states from deciding how to allocate their votes. Personally I'd like to see more split voting systems like Maine and Nebraska rather the winner take all approach of the other states.

Lil devils x:
Although 30 states have rules on their books that require their electorates to vote with the Popular vote, a federal court just ruled that it is unconstitutional to enforce, and they can promise to be loyal to their party instead if they so wish.

Any party that tried that sort of shit to overrule the democratic vote would almost certainly destroy themselves. It might be technically legally constitutional, but politically it would be a flat out constitutional crisis. American democracy is nothing like that degraded: can you imagine the outrage it would cause?

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for? I can only hope it accidentally blows up in Republican's faces and that the right electors are anti-Trump.

What's funny is this case was born out of a nationwide effort by electors to cast faithless ballots and deprive Trump of 270 electoral votes, thereby invoking the Twelfth Amendment. They (attempted to) cast their electoral ballots for Kasich, opposed to Trump, to make him eligible for the House vote.

Whether one puts faith in Russian Meddling or not, there were a few people who believed that Russia had a say in the elections. For some, that's where the argument lays.

The second goal was to stop foreign interference in election. In the founding period, the framers were extremely concerned about infiltration by rivals including Great Britain. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that one major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the "desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." He said that the college would "Guard against all danger of this sort ? with the most provident and judicious attention" from the electors.

The third goal was to prevent poor administration of government. This is a less well-known purpose of the Electoral College, but it is again expressly discussed in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton wrote that "The true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration," and for that reason, he said, the electors should be "able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration."

This election has three aspects that have brought the Electoral College back to relevance.

First, Donald Trump is the first unquestioned demagogue to become a major-party nominee in our country's history. On his quest to the general election, he stoked prejudices and passions to flout fundamental constitutional norms, such as our freedoms of the press, religion, and peaceful assembly. Second, there's incontrovertible evidence that Russia interfered in the campaign, by hacking the email accounts of top Democratic officials and cooperating with WikiLeaks' parallel campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton campaign. Meanwhile, Trump has business entanglements in Russia and other foreign countries, the extent to which are unknown because Trump has not released his tax returns.

And third, his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is on track to win the popular vote now by over 2.8 million votes - over five times Al Gore's narrow margin over George W. Bush in 2000 - a factor electors ought to be able to weigh, whether or not they think it is conclusive.

All of these factors lead us directly to a renascent Electoral College

The Electoral College was designed precisely for such extraordinary instances. As Jeffrey Tulis, Sanford Levinson, and Jeremi Suri (respectively professors of political science, law, and history) recently argued in the New York Daily News, "Our Founding Fathers created what we now call the Electoral College to protect our country against the precise danger we now face: a demagogue who has manipulated and bullied voters, exploited fears and now threatens the very foundation of our republic."

I'm not here arguing on whether Russia did or if they didn't and/or what does that even mean. But to some, with what they saw as a legitimate question came a legitimate argument.

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

That has never been the case. The Founding Fathers were against that entirely

trunkage:

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:
Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

That has never been the case. The Founding Fathers were against that entirely

The Founding Fathers were against direct/absolute democracy, like what ancient Athens had. Thankfully, that's not the only kind of democracy.

Whether or not the USA was a "democracy" in its first decades is a matter of debate. But it is a democracy now. So I question your statement of "that has never been the case." Just because not everything is up for a popular vote does not mean the USA is not a democracy.

"But we're a republic, not a democracy" is the common refrain I hear when explaining this. A statement similar to "That animal isn't a bird, it's red" as if those two statements are exclusive. You can have democracy without being a republic (constitutional monarchies in most of Europe), a republic without being a democracy (Italian merchant Republics, Oligarchies), neither (Absolute monarchy, which still exists), or both, like France, Portugal, and Italy. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

The founding fathers despised democracy. Honestly we're taught basically little to nothing of our own history. We're overwhelmingly ignorant of our origins, to the point where what the average person believes about this country is nothing more than a fairy tale. We have an imagined self-image built upon lies, that were built on top of other lies, which were also built upon even more lies. It's why whenever Republican politicians cry about only "negative" things being taught in schools it's fucking laughable. We're taught a fucking fantasy which somehow still isn't "patriotic" enough for them. Classes on government aren't even mandatory either.

As for the topic itself, it's not really much of a surprise. I'm not too sure if they'll follow through on it though, as who knows what the backlash would be. Honestly though, there is a legit chance that they could do it and the most that would happen is a whole lot of nothing. Maybe the media would get a bit upset for a week? Maybe some people would do a mass protest like the Women's March that lasts for all of a day or two and does nothing? This is a very pacified, politically uninterested country and I can see them easily getting away with it.

I'm sure there's lots of people who'll take up arms against any blatant governmental tyranny. That's what the guns are for, right? Use it or lose it, people!

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for? I can only hope it accidentally blows up in Republican's faces and that the right electors are anti-Trump.

What's funny is this case was born out of a nationwide effort by electors to cast faithless ballots and deprive Trump of 270 electoral votes, thereby invoking the Twelfth Amendment. They (attempted to) cast their electoral ballots for Kasich, opposed to Trump, to make him eligible for the House vote.

No, it was not. The case in question was about him supposed to be voting for Clinton but refusing to do so and scratching out her name and writing in john Kasich, A Republican and that helps Trump, not harms him.

The people calling for the electoral college to deem Trump unfit was a separate issue entirely and had nothing to do with this particular case.

The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio.

Silent Protagonist:
I thought it was the Democrats who were actively campaigning for electorates to break with their states' wishes to elect Hillary instead of Trump last time around. I don't like how this ruling prevents individual states from deciding how to allocate their votes. Personally I'd like to see more split voting systems like Maine and Nebraska rather the winner take all approach of the other states.

They wanted the electoral college to deem Trump unfit for president ( as he very well should have been) and side with the popular vote. Which is different than just wanting them to vote along party lines or vote how they please.

They actually were trying to convince the electoral college to fulfill their role of being the last resort safety net to prevent an unfit person from access to the presidency. The problem, of course, is they did not actually present enough information at the time to actually make their case. All of the data from his fraud case with Trump University scam, his campaign colluding with the Russians, his fraudulent use of charity funds, his fraud case with misrepresenting his business to investors, his repeatedly documented incidents of perjury and the data on tax evasion and money laundering had not been adequately obtained and presented to the electorate in time for them to be able to do their job.

So, I'm pretty sure that electors would still have to be chosen by the parties that support each candidate. When you vote for President, you're voting for a slate of electors that is selected by the party or candidate that you've chosen on the ballot. Faithless electors are not likely to be a big issue.

Also, Faith Spotted Eagle would have made a much better President than either Hillary or Donald.

CM156:
But it is a democracy now.

No. The people do not rule. Money rules. The United States is a plutocracy.

Seanchaidh:
So, I'm pretty sure that electors would still have to be chosen by the parties that support each candidate. When you vote for President, you're voting for a slate of electors that is selected by the party or candidate that you've chosen on the ballot. Faithless electors are not likely to be a big issue.

Also, Faith Spotted Eagle would have made a much better President than either Hillary or Donald.

CM156:
But it is a democracy now.

No. The people do not rule. Money rules. The United States is a plutocracy.

Worse than that, after citizens united, it is now also a Corporatocracy.

EDIT: In addition, it is also the states that are home to the "Blue dog dems" that are also republican majority states, so yes it is still an issue, as they are still often just Republicans even though they have a (D) next to their name. And good grief, the way they are buddies in the state legislatures as it is remember when they even cast votes for one another regardless of party? Yup. Voting when dead? Yup. That is the reality here.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJYDdotNR6I

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-from-divided-districts-vote-with-gop-more-in-2018

ALSO, wasn't this case about a guy who was supposed to vote for a Democrat chosen by Democrats and he chose to vote for a Republican here? Yea that worked out real well didn't it? You're saying this shouldn't be a problem when it is already being proven to be a problem.

The way they constantly ran made nonsense conspiracy crap against Clinton nonstop had people believing all sorts of batshit BS as it is, no matter who they run the same is going to happen and now we can have electorates who can believe whatever crap Qanan or Alex Jones posted that day deciding they believe it and voting however they want instead of what their constituents chose. The whole thing is a mess tbh.

We are long overdue for a system overhaul, but we have the people who we need to have our government protected from currently in control of everything so it will be impossible to actually fix anything for the foreseeable future. This is getting worse right now, not better.

God the US's electoral systems are so stupid.
God having the supreme court appointed by the president and senate is so stupid.

Agema:

Lil devils x:
Although 30 states have rules on their books that require their electorates to vote with the Popular vote, a federal court just ruled that it is unconstitutional to enforce, and they can promise to be loyal to their party instead if they so wish.

Any party that tried that sort of shit to overrule the democratic vote would almost certainly destroy themselves. It might be technically legally constitutional, but politically it would be a flat out constitutional crisis. American democracy is nothing like that degraded: can you imagine the outrage it would cause?

Isn't that what is happening already though via gerrymandering + court stacking + having electorate voting against their constituents + having people win elections while losing the popular vote?

Where is the outrage when it has already been happening? The Supreme court ruled gerrymandering was acceptable, Clinton won the popular vote by millions and lost the election, electorates that were supposed to vote for Clinton didn't and that was just ruled legal in court, and the electoral college failed to prevent an unfit person from taking office even though US DoD and intelligence STILL withhold information from our own president because they see him as a security risk? I would think we are already in a constitutional crisis. People are far too complacent to put forth the outrage needed to change this or they are running around believing conspiracy crap wearing Qanon shirts or joining militias to fight of the invasion of homeless women and children..

09philj:
God the US's electoral systems are so stupid.
God having the supreme court appointed by the president and senate is so stupid.

Yup.. and they make it near impossible for people to do anything about it. The attempts to fix it keep getting knocked down by the stacked bench. The lifetime appointments are an issue as well. There needs to be easier means to remove bad judges from the bench.

...If this decides the 2020 election with people going against the popular vote...people are going to die. I'm not saying this as a boast, more a sign of weary resignation as my country slowly kills itself.

Lil devils x:
EDIT: In addition, it is also the states that are home to the "Blue dog dems" that are also republican majority states, so yes it is still an issue, as they are still often just Republicans even though they have a (D) next to their name. And good grief, the way they are buddies in the state legislatures as it is remember when they even cast votes for one another regardless of party? Yup. Voting when dead? Yup. That is the reality here.

Well, OK. That's a good point.

erttheking:
...If this decides the 2020 election with people going against the popular vote...people are going to die. I'm not saying this as a boast, more a sign of weary resignation as my country slowly kills itself.

Considering we had it happen already, and this just made it legal, I honestly think the people are far too complacent to actually do much to change it. Sure, we had marches and protests and what did that actually change? Republicans still control 30 states , the Senate, the judiciary and the white house as we speak and the only people grabbin their gunz are those trying to attack desperate refugee families fleeing horrific situations.

The reality here is that reality is irrelevant at this point because people believe all sorts of nonsense instead of what is really happening or they choose to ignore that is really happening and we simply do not have enough people to care enough to actually change this. How many people are willing to uproot their families, quit their jobs and head off to the rural regions so they can flip enough districts to change it? Yea not many people can even financially do that to begin with so unlikely anything will change. The reality is we have to flip rural districts that believe all sorts of crazy nonsense. We can't do that by not being in those districts. We need more people on the ground in those districts changing minds and/or moving enough people into the regions to outvote the ignorant people causing this to happen in the first place.

That on top of having to volunteer to work the polling stations and putting a stop to the voter suppression going on as well. I can attest from being in hardcore Republican Trump territory here, it is not an easy task for Democrats to try to change anything in these districts. The word of mouth and social pressures on the local level will make it a near impossible task. Outside of building new housing development and moving in enough people to outvote them, and buying radio and television stations and removing Sinclair's deathgrip on the media, which takes a crapton of money, I am not sure how it could even be accomplished.

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

Yeah, that's exactly what I remember being taught back in school. My teacher said it was a fail-safe so that like an idiot or whatever would never get elected president...............

trunkage:

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:
Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

That has never been the case. The Founding Fathers were against that entirely

I mean that we were taught this just as we were taught that America is the 'Land of the free and home of the brave', that it is a place that welcomes the tired, poor huddled masses who seek to be free. That it is a melting pot of diversity where we are not united by ethnicity or background, but by our hope for the future, for a land where everyone can achieve greatness, no matter where they came from. A country where we fight evil cause its the right thing to do.

That is what I was raised to believe, and it is beyond disheartening as I learned the truth. I still believe in that idealized America, that is certainly the one I aspire for, but reality has erased much of my idealistic naivety.

Also Democracy is solely 1 person, 1 vote and nothing anyone can say will change that truth. Republics are not democracy, this country is not a democracy.

Phoenixmgs:

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:
So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

Yeah, that's exactly what I remember being taught back in school. My teacher said it was a fail-safe so that like an idiot or whatever would never get elected president...............

If videos were still working, this would get a Stewie 'Haha'

Lil devils x:
No, it was not. The case in question was about him supposed to be voting for Clinton but refusing to do so and scratching out her name and writing in john Kasich, A Republican and that helps Trump, not harms him.

The people calling for the electoral college to deem Trump unfit was a separate issue entirely and had nothing to do with this particular case.

No, you hauled off half-cocked and linked a bunch of articles that either lie by omission, or completely omit the role of the challenging electors' in the "Hamilton elector" movement in a pretty brazen case of unethical framing to press an ideology-driven narrative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/22/he-tried-stop-trump-electoral-college-court-says-his-faithless-ballot-was-legal/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/court-finds-in-favor-of-faithless-electors-who-attempted-to-stop-trump-from-winning-presidency

Not fond of linking WashEx, but it backs up the WashPo report while also giving something of a description of the entire plan. The plan was for electors pledged to Trump to break rank, thereby denying him 270 electoral votes. The electoral college threshold is majority rather than plurality, meaning had Trump failed to receive 270 electoral votes, even just 269, the vote would have gone to the House by default. In other words, electors pledged to Hillary voting faithlessly did not help Trump -- or even hurt Hillary -- they were votes cast in anticipation of invoking the Twelfth Amendment.

The issue is, under the Twelfth Amendment, the House vote is constrained to the three candidates who received the most electoral votes, which means electoral ballots had to be cast to a candidate who was neither Trump nor Hillary, and enough of them to ensure a Trump-alternate candidate who could serve as a compromise ended up on the ballot. In this particular case, Democrats going faithless to cast electoral ballots for Kasich was actually something of an ideal outcome, as Kasich is a moderate Republican with strong bipartisan appeal and missing Hillary's baggage, who would have made for a vastly easier compromise candidate and far less likely to trigger a full-on constitutional crisis.

CM156:

trunkage:

Saelune:
I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

That has never been the case. The Founding Fathers were against that entirely

The Founding Fathers were against direct/absolute democracy, like what ancient Athens had. Thankfully, that's not the only kind of democracy.

Whether or not the USA was a "democracy" in its first decades is a matter of debate. But it is a democracy now. So I question your statement of "that has never been the case." Just because not everything is up for a popular vote does not mean the USA is not a democracy.

"But we're a republic, not a democracy" is the common refrain I hear when explaining this. A statement similar to "That animal isn't a bird, it's red" as if those two statements are exclusive. You can have democracy without being a republic (constitutional monarchies in most of Europe), a republic without being a democracy (Italian merchant Republics, Oligarchies), neither (Absolute monarchy, which still exists), or both, like France, Portugal, and Italy. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic.

I mean, I was specifically talking about how only rich male landowners got a vote. Which makes it more Romanesque anyway. The Founding Fathers were more about making sure most people couldn't vote. Let alone thinking (assuming) that the small few who could vote would do it incompetently thus requiring all this shenanigans with the electoral college to make sure 'the right choice' was made

Saelune:
I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

Nah that's just a myth perpetrated to keep everyone content to consume and keep the wheels of American commerce grinding. Political activism is bad for capitalism and therefore unpatriotic.

Lil devils x:
No, it was not. The case in question was about him supposed to be voting for Clinton but refusing to do so and scratching out her name and writing in john Kasich, A Republican and that helps Trump, not harms him.

Hang on, what? That's, legal?!

Tonight on Banana Republic News 🍌

Lil devils x:
Isn't that what is happening already though via gerrymandering + court stacking + having electorate voting against their constituents + having people win elections while losing the popular vote?

That's more "bending the rules", so to speak. At least with gerrymandering, people are still voting and having their votes count in some way, for instance. Not winning the election despite winning the overall popular vote is a known and accepted feature of systems where votes are tallied via multiple localised constituencies.

Flat out overruling a democratic vote is a whole big step up in contempt for the democratic process.

You could understand the logic of not confirming the popular vote if there had been some clear and compelling rationale - imagine that in the gap between election and confirmation it turned out that the winning candidate was a murderer, or a foreign agent, etc. But simply denying public vote for partisan politics is tantamount to cancelling democracy.

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:
they very well could stack their electoral college with people vowing loyalty to party rather than the popular vote thus guaranteeing those states vote for Trump regardless of election results.

If this happens, chaos will ensue. Real fuckin' chaos with blood and violence. People will be killed. And considering the fact that the chaos will be brought by Republicans trying to kill democracy, they will be on the receiving end of that violence. So they better think long and hard how they wish to proceed.

You are far too optimistic.

That would lead to massive civil strife, and I dunno if you know this but...

The right wing controls the government, the military, has the cops sympathetic to them (and the left views them with suspicion), and the maga people who would LOVE for democracy to be subverted if it gives them more Trump tend to be very aggressive, very well armed, and they seem like they're just itching to use their guns.

Unless it was a MASS uprising that outnumbered every single once of those groups put together, there's no chance it'll work out, and it would put the final nail in the coffin of democracy by introducing violence and murder into the equation. And considering a heck of a lot of people just want to be comfortable and have checked out of the democratic process as it is, I don't think that support will come. A huge chunk of the population will get upset at the subversion of democracy, but it won't go further than shaking their fist at the TV and telling their friends at the bar that "Democracy is dead, that suuucks bro".

Not to mention, whoever fires the first actual shots will be labelled forever as the bad guy and lose a shitton of the public support they'll need.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here