Petition to change electoral votes to favor HRC.

[Super-Surprise]

Shame on HRC!


http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAk6cds.img?h=522&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1207&y=1109

 

[Sean Renaud]

And I'm not heart set on the 4 or 6 years thing. I might not have OCD but something about being divisible by 2 just kinda works for me. It's like seeing a motherfucker eat with his left hand. It's wrong goddamnt! Wrong!

I agree knowing what we know about incumbants that a clean sweep is unlikely but nothing is impossible and what can I say. I'm a sufficiently big fan of "big government" that I like having rules in place to prevent stupid foreseeable things.

It's not really more voting if we did your 4 years staggered plan. We have midterms now. IT would just mean they MATTER for real real not for play play.

Hell as a Californian I think we might do well with less voting. I get so pissed when the politicians put together "hey were gonna bump sales tax from 8.25 to 10 (which honestly I'd prefer simply because I loathe math and would love to be correct with my estimation instead of knowing a bit high.) with "we want to build x" and then voters support building x but not the tax hike. Why is that even a fucking option?! WHY?!! There are a couple other positions that I think the public shouldn't vote on. Like if you are so far down the food chain you don't actually need to run under a party and thus don't get commercial time or tv interviews on the local stations and papers. Maybe whoever is above you should just pick you instead of letting a bunch of people choose the name they think sounds cool.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And I'm not heart set on the 4 or 6 years thing. I might not have OCD but something about being divisible by 2 just kinda works for me. It's like seeing a motherfucker eat with his left hand. It's wrong goddamnt! Wrong!

I agree knowing what we know about incumbants that a clean sweep is unlikely but nothing is impossible and what can I say. I'm a sufficiently big fan of "big government" that I like having rules in place to prevent stupid foreseeable things.

Hey it's all good! I'm flexible, willing to work with the people

It's not really more voting if we did your 4 years staggered plan. We have midterms now. IT would just mean they MATTER for real real not for play play.

Good point.

Hell as a Californian I think we might do well with less voting. I get so pissed when the politicians put together "hey were gonna bump sales tax from 8.25 to 10 (which honestly I'd prefer simply because I loathe math and would love to be correct with my estimation instead of knowing a bit high.) with "we want to build x" and then voters support building x but not the tax hike. Why is that even a fucking option?! WHY?!!

Oh I agree, there really should be some controls on voter initiatives in CA.....that shit is out of control stupid way too often. I'm not saying cut it off, but maybe there is some room to raise the standards a bit.

There are a couple other positions that I think the public shouldn't vote on. Like if you are so far down the food chain you don't actually need to run under a party and thus don't get commercial time or tv interviews on the local stations and papers. Maybe whoever is above you should just pick you instead of letting a bunch of people choose the name they think sounds cool.

I'd get down with that because maybe certain megaplex cities have gotten to the point that would benefit them.

Though honestly I think all that piddly county/municipal shit should be handled the way the people of that city/county want it to be managed. I don't mind voting for my sheriff, county/council board members, judges. They directly impact me far more than POTUS or senator fuckhead and if I can have the choice of living in a place that allows me that choice I would like to keep that option open.

So if LA or San Bernadino co. need to choke up the list of elected officials by all means, but no need to make the people of Humboldt or Lassen co. do the same.

Gotta leave flexibility for different needs, you just can't run a town of 6,000 people like a 12 million person megaplex. Shit doesn't translate either direction on a lot of levels.

I really wish the control freaks on both ends of that battle would chill the fuck out too....quit worrying about how everyone else is doing shit and worry about keeping your own god damn back yards in order. Lot of progress might happen if we started worrying about our own shit instead of everyone elses. Worth a try....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Last time I checked California was a part of the US of A. And if you took Texas out the Hillary would have won even more of the vote. Cherry pick your numbers all you want. Billy's wife won the majority of the voters.

Look at Trumps Tweets when even he expected to lose.

I can understand a system that gives a bigger voice to smaller states. All in the name of the greater good and national unity. But when a system was devised because the founding fathers did not trust the unwashed masses to make the right decision. That's dumb. And undemocratic. But the again the Democrats lost.

If you counted all the votes, then who knows?

You see, if the margin of victory is larger than the absentee ballots, they don't count them. Who knows what the real tally was, what both candidates did know were the rules of the election, which is why they only campaigned in certain states, California not being one of them. The only reason Clinton ever went there was Hollywood and Silicon Valley cash.

So the idea that she won the popular anything falls flat on its face especially in light of the passioned Democrat exhortations in 2000 that every single vote must be counted in a Democracy...

 

[Wrong Element]

You see, if the margin of victory is larger than the absentee ballots, they don't count them.

https://i.imgflip.com/1c4uye.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sorry that facts are inconvenient to you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Don't forget you folk did not vote for a president. You just suggested which way the folk who do elect the president should vote. Also the majority of Yanks voted for Billy's wife. So all you conservatives, don't get too smug. The American people do not elect the POTUS. In most cases if the Electoral College felt it was in the better interest of the US to have someone of their choosing as POTUS, there is little you could do about it.

Even with a Democrat majority every where. The smaller states will never get rid of the Electoral College without some other way of increasing their say in things.

Have you heard of the 1952 Supreme Court decision in Ray v. Blair?

The Court reasoned that, first of all, the federal judiciary has jurisdiction in the matter because, while state electors are not federal officers, they are performing a federal function in assisting to determine the outcome of national elections. The state has the authority to oversee them, and, in doing this, the state acts under the authority from the Federal Constitution.

Further, the Court determined that a state is within its rights to exclude, or to allow parties to exclude, potential electors on the basis of refusing to pledge to support the party's nominees. This is acceptable because it is a method of ensuring that party candidates in the general election are committed to the leadership and philosophy of the party.

Finally, the Supreme Court decided unequivocally that the Twelfth Amendment doesn't prevent parties from requiring elector candidates to take a pledge of nominee support. Further, the requirement of a pledge does not deny equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it did not address the requirement that electors must vote for their pledged candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_v._Blair

The only reason we could do "little about" members of the Electoral College electing a President in violation of the pledges they made to their respective state parties is because most states still do not have laws invalidating such renegade votes, unlike Michigan and Minnesota, to name two.

Let that shit happen just once, and we won't have to worry about it happening a second time. And the Supreme Court will have already endorsed the corrective measures by virtue of a 64-year-old ruling.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Have you heard of the 1952 Supreme Court decision in Ray v. Blair?



The only reason we could do "little about" members of the Electoral College electing a President in violation of the pledges they made to their respective state parties is because most states still do not have laws invalidating such renegade votes, unlike Michigan and Minnesota, to name two.

Let that shit happen just once, and we won't have to worry about it happening a second time. And the Supreme Court will have already endorsed the corrective measures by virtue of a 64-year-old ruling.

Doesn't take away from my statement or the bit you highlighted. The court decision deals with 'potential' electors. And I said 'most' cases due to Michigan and Minnesota.

And you are making an assumption. If the electors instead went with the candidate who won the popular vote the outcry would be less. Although still considerable. In your possible scenario we are talking the loser of both popular and electoral votes and the college going with that person.

The college goes with popular vote and that candidate fills vacant SCOTUS seats and voila, done deal.

It still comes down to the fact that US citizens do not elect the POTUS. Nor do they elect the committee which does. All they do is indicate to the electors how they want them to vote. Legally the electors can resist the popular vote and even the electoral vote.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Have you heard of the 1952 Supreme Court decision in Ray v. Blair?

And big bird boss man scores another head shot...

The college goes with popular vote and that candidate fills vacant SCOTUS seats and voila, done deal.

Yea, keep that hope up LOL...

 

[Sean Renaud]

<snip>​

I'd get down with that because maybe certain megaplex cities have gotten to the point that would benefit them.

Though honestly I think all that piddly county/municipal shit should be handled the way the people of that city/county want it to be managed. I don't mind voting for my sheriff, county/council board members, judges. They directly impact me far more than POTUS or senator fuckhead and if I can have the choice of living in a place that allows me that choice I would like to keep that option open.

So if LA or San Bernadino co. need to choke up the list of elected officials by all means, but no need to make the people of Humboldt or Lassen co. do the same.

Gotta leave flexibility for different needs, you just can't run a town of 6,000 people like a 12 million person megaplex. Shit doesn't translate either direction on a lot of levels.

I really wish the control freaks on both ends of that battle would chill the fuck out too....quit worrying about how everyone else is doing shit and worry about keeping your own god damn back yards in order. Lot of progress might happen if we started worrying about our own shit instead of everyone elses. Worth a try....

While yeah I do lean towards "bigger" (though in this case I think more efficient is the accurate term) government I'm perfectly happy to let cities beneath 'x' population do whatever the fuck they want within reason. I'm a big believer that we really need to stop letting people decide that they don't want to pay for fire protection. Because seriously it's like once a year everybody gets in a tizzy because the fire department came out and watched a house burn because some jack ass wouldn't pay. And then we pretend like the government is the bad guy for not handing out REAL freebies because if you do that shit once people learn that it works.

But yeah for a small city where everybody knows everybody do your thing. In LA a lot of these things are simply better handled the same way the feds do.

This goes double for judges. we should never vote on judges anywhere. Why you ask? Because we can chart that judges suddenly lose their minds around election time. Because you have to be tough on crime. I think they are being dicks then, you probably think they are being overly lax the rest of the time. In this case who cares who's right? I want to know that my fate is decided on the merits of my case and not on how close Bubba is to his next election.

 

[VeraBad]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../whats-mike-pence-hiding-his-emails/93791712/[/QUOTE]

 

[BotanyBoy]

While yeah I do lean towards "bigger" (though in this case I think more efficient is the accurate term) government I'm perfectly happy to let cities beneath 'x' population do whatever the fuck they want within reason. I'm a big believer that we really need to stop letting people decide that they don't want to pay for fire protection. Because seriously it's like once a year everybody gets in a tizzy because the fire department came out and watched a house burn because some jack ass wouldn't pay. And then we pretend like the government is the bad guy for not handing out REAL freebies because if you do that shit once people learn that it works.

See out here nobody gives a fuck....if your shit gets fucked up because you can't adult that's your fuckin problem.

But yeah for a small city where everybody knows everybody do your thing. In LA a lot of these things are simply better handled the same way the feds do.

Well you have 3100 times as many people crammed into about half the space, it makes sense to break down the jurisdictions to better fit the people who actually live there...when you get to the nitty gritty level of government, right there on the front line where the meat hits the metal.

This goes double for judges. we should never vote on judges anywhere. Why you ask? Because we can chart that judges suddenly lose their minds around election time. Because you have to be tough on crime. I think they are being dicks then, you probably think they are being overly lax the rest of the time. In this case who cares who's right? I want to know that my fate is decided on the merits of my case and not on how close Bubba is to his next election.

Yea, I'm all about judges not being elected.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Judges! Yet another good reason to adopt a Westminster style of government. We appoint them. No grandstanding or sucking up come election time. That's a politicians job.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let us spike the football and create wailing and anguish among the vanquished...

...

As for Democrats who think they will just automatically win the 2018 elections, they are in for a rude surprise. Midterms will continue to be a disaster for the Left as labor union power fades away. That’s why Trump won the election; the old industrial heartland voted GOP. Consider: in 1992 Bill Clinton carried Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, West Virginia, and Michigan. Yet this time around, all those states not only voted Trump, but put in Republican senators (West Virginia didn’t have a senate election). The difference is in the slipping power of unions. Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Michigan are now Right-to-Work; Ohio and Pennsylvania are not, but only because doofus Republican governors messed up; Kentucky and Missouri will be Right to Work as soon as their new legislatures can vote it in.

As I explained in September, the Democrats’ all-important GOTV efforts only work when there are labor operatives to fund and organize them. In much of the country, that just no longer happens as trade unions disappear.

Tellingly, this year the biggest labor story was a total embarrassment -- James O’Keefe’s sting videos of Bob Creamer and the labor union bullies at Democracy Partners. The whole Democratic Party and its friends in organized labor have run out of energy and ideas. They couldn’t draw flies to a Hillary rally so the best they could do was send paid thugs to make trouble at Trump events. Pathetic.

My guess is that President Trump, GOP leadership, and the conservative movement all find a way to get along the next four years, while the Democrats are the ones who do the soul-searching and the party splitting. Wherever they wind up, though, they can longer expect union dues-paying working people to pick up their tab.

Frank Friday

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/union_collapse_doomed_hillary_.html#ixzz4Q4QHwmjn

 

[Sean Renaud]

See out here nobody gives a fuck....if your shit gets fucked up because you can't adult that's your fuckin problem.



Well you have 3100 times as many people crammed into about half the space, it makes sense to break down the jurisdictions to better fit the people who actually live there...when you get to the nitty gritty level of government, right there on the front line where the meat hits the metal.



Yea, I'm all about judges not being elected.

Sure seems like the people standing next to the news crews give a fuck and think that big government is picking on them. Obviously the media only interviews people who fit some sort of narrative but even digging into drudge the most "positive" I can find is "Liberals lord it over the little guy who can't afford high taxes."

Like I said, I get that my school has more people than the town my cousin lives in. My major question to them becomes how do we deal effectively with problems that you can't and that WILL happen. You're a californian, you know the state will be on fire in about seven months. And it won't be LA because concrete don't burn. It will be San Bernadino but not the parts where people live. But they cannot hope to handle the scope of the disaster that IS (not might but IS) headed their way.

And the same goes for Florida and places that get snow or hurricandes.

 

[neci]

Fuck that. We lost, thems the rules. If we want to change the rules 2018 is the year, not that we're ever going to change the rules. Not without a MASSIVE Democrat control of this country that I don't believe is possible.

i agree. if challenges are ever made to the electoral college, they should not be retroactive. her win in the popular vote gives decent grounds for challenging the system on a legal basis, if her lawyers choose to do so. at least i would think. still. if changes were made (let me laugh now) they should be for future elections. this election was run under the premise of the electoral college, and it should stand as such until there is no electoral college remaining.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

This petition is simply petitioning the Electors to vote for Hillary Clinton on December 19, and I don't doubt some who are technically pledged to Trump now will. But 70+ must do so amid a threat of civil war if they do so for Clinton to miraculously emerge the "official" President-elect.

The Electors themselves and the process itself (known today as the Electoral College) are constitutionally empowered, meaning any practical change to that institution itself can only legally be accomplished by amending the Constitution.

Article II
Section 1

1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.8

4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

In the meantime, as progressivism is infamous for, an end-around the Constitution's respect for the states' independence is in play:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If you counted all the votes, then who knows?

You see, if the margin of victory is larger than the absentee ballots, they don't count them. Who knows what the real tally was, what both candidates did know were the rules of the election, which is why they only campaigned in certain states, California not being one of them. The only reason Clinton ever went there was Hollywood and Silicon Valley cash.

So the idea that she won the popular anything falls flat on its face especially in light of the passioned Democrat exhortations in 2000 that every single vote must be counted in a ...

I'm not buying this. You're going to have to come up with a pretty good documented reference to make this case. There ARE valid reasons why absentee ballots might be rejected, but the size of the overall vote is NOT a reason for simply not including them in a final tally.

Read this: http://www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/is-your-absentee-ballot-being-counted-californians-may-have-new-ways-to-fin

 

[BoyNextDoor]

HRC lost. She was a shitty candidate.

The Electoral College helps prevent the tyranny of the majority, and works as designed.

Too many dopes that voted in 2008 and 2012 decided to stay home. End of story.



</thread>

 

[Sean]

Judges! Yet another good reason to adopt a Westminster style of government. We appoint them. No grandstanding or sucking up come election time. That's a politicians job.

Electing judges has always seemed to me to be just about the worst part of America's byzantine legal system.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sure seems like the people standing next to the news crews give a fuck and think that big government is picking on them. Obviously the media only interviews people who fit some sort of narrative but even digging into drudge the most "positive" I can find is "Liberals lord it over the little guy who can't afford high taxes."

Rural folks? Well no shit.

You don't live here, you don't know much about the people, culture or environment.....state already funnels a lot of our water off and you guys occasionally build us a library or fill the pot holes.

There is not much of a need beyond that.

Yet because of LA/SanFranJose's arrogance they feel the need to go all control freak and micromanage mother fuckers living in the mountains hundreds of miles away....just can't let them manage their own day to day bull shit.

And it's irritating.

How would you feel if Happy Camp CA, got to call all the shots for LA and San Bernadino? No regard for your needs or lifestyles, but because they got the elites they get to just bully you around for all manner of shit. Micromanagement with total disregard for the people....

Would not take long for most folks in SoCal to get pissed about that.....well big city fucking with remote rural towns and people is no different. Is it really a wonder they aren't big fans of being bullied by LA/SF?

Like I said, I get that my school has more people than the town my cousin lives in. My major question to them becomes how do we deal effectively with problems that you can't and that WILL happen. You're a californian, you know the state will be on fire in about seven months. And it won't be LA because concrete don't burn. It will be San Bernadino but not the parts where people live. But they cannot hope to handle the scope of the disaster that IS (not might but IS) headed their way.

You don't.

That's part of the risk of living in certain areas. You evacuate people, protect what you can and let the rest of it burn. If your shit gets burnt down and you can't afford it then you learn a lesson on why you need to spend the extra for insurance on certain things, tough titty. Sell the lot and GTFO. People like me will buy it cheap and build a new house on it, charge someone 4,800 bucks a month to live in it.

And the same goes for Florida and places that get snow or hurricandes.

Shit happens man, you can't micromanage and tax people out of natural disasters.

No amount of forcing me to pay contractors with great DNC/Sacramento connections, is going to change the fact that one day my house will be burn down in a forest fire.

 

[water505]

Sorry that facts are inconvenient to you.

Facts are racist.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Electing judges has always seemed to me to be just about the worst part of America's byzantine legal system.

It is not everywhere.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm not buying this. You're going to have to come up with a pretty good documented reference to make this case. There ARE valid reasons why absentee ballots might be rejected, but the size of the overall vote is NOT a reason for simply not including them in a final tally.

Read this: http://www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/is-your-absentee-ballot-being-counted-californians-may-have-new-ways-to-fin

That documentation is occurring as we speak. Based on preliminary findings it is estimated that 2 million + illegals voted. I somehow doubt that any significant percentage voted for Trump.

Hopefully that won't be a problem in the next election.

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That documentation is occurring as we speak. Based on preliminary findings it is estimated that 2 million + illegals voted. I somehow doubt that any significant percentage voted for Trump.

Hopefully that won't be a problem in the next election.

Ishmael

How can it be a problem in the next election? We have The Orangutang to deport them. We have 800K identified in a database in NYC alone. We have a GOP Senate, House, 30 Governors mansions and hundreds of legislatures. Start the deportations.

Ergo, it cannot. Old news. Next.