Can Hillary Still Win?

Quote: rxwine

Attempts to do things can fail many times. Sometimes they eventually exceed.

What would you replace the EC with
that would be as fair. Not winner
take all, that's a disaster. The problem
is, people think they vote for a
candidate, when they actually are
voting for electors in their state.
Just explain that better and more
often and there would be fewer
problems.

Great video explaining why EC is
better than winner take all. Made
last year.

Quote: rxwine

I don't understand.

Attempts to do things can fail many times. Sometimes they eventually exceed. Sometimes you just need tweak it; sometimes you need different conditions or different ideas.

Many things worth doing often follow that pattern. When you don't think it's worth doing you stop. Not 'cause you fail.

(This lesson brought to you by many people.)

Sure, I just don't see how playing the faithless elector is going to help much. I've been wrong before...

Quote: TheCesspit

The recent faithless electors appear to have been protesting. Yet the EC still exists. Doesn't feel like the place to be changing it.

There have been 9 faithless electors in 100 years where the most recent is an obvious mistake. There has only been 1 at any given election, and they were all forms of protest.

The only serious attempt to change an outcome was in 1836 election, when 23 electors tried to block Richard M. Johnson from becoming Vice President by denying him the majority and forcing the election into the Senate. He won anyway. The protest was because Johnson had three intimate long term relations with slaves resulting in children.


1 2004 election: An anonymous Minnesota elector, pledged for Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards, cast his or her presidential vote for John Ewards [sic], rather than Kerry, presumably by accident. (All of Minnesota's electors cast their vice presidential ballots for John Edwards.) Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots, so unless one of the electors claims responsibility, it is unlikely the identity of the faithless elector will ever be known. As a result of this incident, Minnesota Statutes were amended to provide for public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidation of a vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector is pledged.
1 2000 election: Washington, D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of voting congressional representation.
1968 to 1996
1 1988 election: West Virginia Elector Margarette Leach, pledged for Democrats Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen, but as a form of protest against the winner-take-all custom of the Electoral College, instead cast her votes for the candidates in the reverse of their positions on the national ticket; her presidential vote went to Bentsen and her vice presidential vote to Dukakis.
1 1976 election: Washington Elector Mike Padden, pledged for Republicans Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, cast his presidential electoral vote for Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Ford for the Republican nomination. He cast his vice presidential vote, as pledged, for Dole.
1 1972 election: Virginia Elector Roger MacBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his electoral votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan. MacBride's vote for Nathan was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history. MacBride became the Libertarian candidate for President in the 1976 election.
1 1968 election: North Carolina Elector Lloyd W. Bailey, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his votes for American Independent Party candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay.
1 1960 election: Oklahoma Elector Henry D. Irwin, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., cast his presidential electoral vote for Democratic non-candidate Harry F. Byrd and his vice presidential electoral vote for Republican Barry Goldwater. (Fourteen unpledged electors also voted for Byrd for president, but supported Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, for vice president.)
1 1956 election: Alabama Elector W. F. Turner, pledged for Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver, cast his votes for Walter Burgwyn Jones and Herman Talmadge.
1 1948 election: Two Tennessee electors were on both the Democratic Party and the States' Rights Democratic Party slates. When the Democratic Party slate won, one of these electors voted for the Democratic nominees Harry S. Truman and Alben W. Barkley. The other, Preston Parks, cast his votes for States' Rights Democratic Party candidates Strom Thurmond and Fielding L. Wright, making him a faithless elector.

The entire difference in the popular vote can be attributed to the excess votes for Hillary that were cast in California, 3,731,232 as of last report acc to wikipedia page [still growing too].

So you could say if it were not for the Electoral College, California essentially would have elected the President, President Hillary.

Doesn't sound good to me.

The big question is why is the media not demanding Hillary denounce these people and publicly state she accepts the results of a Trump victory?

From 1992 to 2016, we've had four presidents who were woefully deficient in foreign policy experience, and who therefore made a mess of things.

In 2008 Republicans complained, with reason, that Obama wasn't qualified to serve as president. Then they went and elected the one candidate even less qualified than Obama was.

Quote: AZDuffman

The big question is why is the media not demanding Hillary denounce these people and publicly state she accepts the results of a Trump victory?

Dunno.

I think they should do a review of the paper ballots overall, to check things are right; not that I disbelieve the result. I do disbelieve the security of the voting machines in use (it's awful), and doing a review (recounting a key district) would help establish that everything is still as secure as it should be... and avoids future questions.

Sadly, the only way a full review is done is if a candidate pays for it.

Quote: TheCesspit

Dunno.

I think they should do a review of the paper ballots overall, to check things are right; not that I disbelieve the result. I do disbelieve the security of the voting machines in use (it's awful), and doing a review (recounting a key district) would help establish that everything is still as secure as it should be... and avoids future questions.

Sadly, the only way a full review is done is if a candidate pays for it.

But the question is, how do we know the "review" is right and not the first count?

Best I heard was how STRATFOR put it in 2000. If you have ever done inventory in a store or warehouse you know how hard it can be to count things, and harder to count over and over. You and I could inventory a storeroom and get two different results. Then do it together and get a third result. Yet all could be incorrect.

I just ask about Hillary as the lamestreams were so crazy and demanding when Trump said, "I'll let you know" yet they do not demand Hillary denounce all the folks trying to overturn things.

Quote: TheCesspit

I think they should do a review of the paper ballots overall, to check things are right; not that I disbelieve the result. I do disbelieve the security of the voting machines in use (it's awful), and doing a review (recounting a key district) would help establish that everything is still as secure as it should be... and avoids future questions.

The US electoral system is not broken.

They should check as a matter of course, just like businesses do internal audits. And I mean after every election.

Quote:

Sadly, the only way a full review is done is if a candidate pays for it.

All US government agencies, from the smallest to the Defense Department, are terrible at policing themselves.

But the electoral system in the US is not broken. there's that.

They completed the canvassing in MI
and instead of winning by 13K votes,
Trump won by 10K. Most of the lost
votes were found in predominantly
black Wayne county, which is Detroit.