URGENT: Petition to the Electoral College - Please save us from President Trump!

Maybe this will accomplish something, but……

Over 50,000,000 people just voted for Trump.

Do you seriously think they will have any problem finding 270 of them to vote for Donald in the Electoral College.

Les

What does it accomplish? Get a different President. The Electoral College is already chosen, (mostly). The state Republican parties have picked their electors. They supposedly agreed to vote for whomever their Party wants. If some state parties wants to unseat Trump, they can instruct their electors not to vote for him. If an individual elector personally decides to vote against Trump, he could do that too. If Trump does not win in the Electoral College by 50%+, then the House of Representatives decides who will be President by a special vote by state. Since the Republicans have the House nailed down, they get to select a better candidate.
Everybody wins:the protesters get rid of Trumpthe Republicans get their choicethe Muslims get freedom to travelthe taco trucks get to park on any cornerTrump gets to be right about the system being "rigged"Gary Johnson gets to ask the House to select him in compromiseReformers get another argument for changing the anachronistic Electoral Collegeand finally, some of the Electors themselves get a place in history.

Harland Harrison

I guess then petition signers have a lot more faith in The Establishment and the Republicans than I do. Unless the petition signers feel that Johnson can be persuaded to become part of The Establishment and not touch Big Government.

The way I see it, the Founding Fathers had a point in establishing the Electoral College. If only the popular vote counts, only the areas with large population centers have a say, leaving rural areas voiceless. Hillary Clinton (as well as every other Big Government candidate) thrived in large population centers, while rural areas rejected her (and her Big Government ideas).

I suppose the days of "peaceful transition of power" are over, with snowflakes rioting in the streets, etc.

Marcy

Can you believe over 2000 kids in the SF schools walked out today to protest. They are breeding these little monsters.

Mike

SF Unified Grade and High Schools….

Mike

Yes I can believe it.

Marcy

BTW. An outstanding promoter in S F schools of the "think as told" generation is now a SF Supervisor.

Marcy

The founding fathers did not set up the electoral college to function as it functions today. The founding fathers thought the electors would decide among themselves which individuals ought to become president. The founders said each state could choose its electors any way it wished. Among the 13 original states, in eleven of them, at least once the state legislature picked the electors. Only Virginia and Maryland always had popular votes to choose presidential electors.
As to rural people, if it is necessary to have an electoral vote system to choose the president to protect them, why doesn't any state use a state electoral system to elect its governor? Or US Senator? Big cities don't dominate the nation any longer anyway. The suburbs have more people than the urban centers.
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

The process of election [by the Electoral College] affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers # 68. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68
Harland Harrison

Indeed. As I said, the founding fathers tried to avoid the kind of populism we see today. Just look at the snowflakes burning up the town to protest "hate" (deliberately in quotations). Today we would not dream of limiting the vote to property owners or people who could pay a poll tax (i e, worked). That's good, because then I can vote. Not so good if I vote to tax the property of the other guy. So that's why I am not quick to want to change the work of the founders.

Marcy

Michael,
You are right that the US military is committing war crimes in several Middle East countries. The aggression started by George W. Bush has continued under Obama, and even spread. Soldiers are responsible for committing atrocities and their commanders are responsible for their actions. The Commander in Chief and everyone in the chain of command can be blamed for the actions of subordinates. But Hillary Clinton was never the President, never in the military, never in the chain of command, and can hardly be called a "proven mass murderer" for crimes committed by Obama's army.
Harland Harrison

Thanks, Harland.

I agree with all you say with the exception of your last clause in the last sentence.

To the contrary, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton managed the war efforts in the Middle East and was influential in initiating and expanding them.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp://ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

Michael,

You are right that the US military is committing war crimes in several Middle East countries. The aggression started by George W. Bush has continued under Obama, and even spread. Soldiers are responsible for committing atrocities and their commanders are responsible for their actions. The Commander in Chief and everyone in the chain of command can be blamed for the actions of subordinates. But Hillary Clinton was never the President, never in the military, never in the chain of command, and can hardly be called a "proven mass murderer" for crimes committed by Obama's army.

Harland Harrison

He got elected fair and square. And by a large margin. And Hilary did not get that much more of the popular vote. We may not like it but it is what it is.....
Francoise

Yep. That's my view. But now the real work for voters starts, which the way I see it is keeping all officials' feet to the fire.

Crude but true: a woman I was talking with today said, "I rather be groped than bombed to death."

Marcy

When all the popular votes have been counted, Hillary will probably have more than 1,000,000 votes than Trump.
A system in which the person who places second takes the office is not "fair and square".
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

Fair and square needs to be referenced as "what is written." And the written rules say he got elected correctly. Now, if we as a nation, do not feel good about the rules, we say so in the public arena, and we make a proposal to amend the rules. Of course, good luck about supporting a constitutional convention. That paper will emerge looking like The Manifesto.

Marcy

Would it be "fair and square" if the electoral college on December 19 chooses someone other than Donald Trump? After all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Constitution says the electors choose the president. Electors can vote for anyone who is age 35, a natural born citizen, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years.
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

Absolutely fair and square. So, if petition signers really are determined to get anyone but Trump, then yes they can lobby the electors to vote for Clinton, Johnson or anyone else. My guess is you will end up with an Establishment person. Business as usual.

PS. Maybe signers are looking for a couple of outliers who will vote for Johnson. Then Libs can pile up some ballot access ? Huummmm. What a Faustian bargain.

Marcy

No, the election may have been legal but not "fair and square". And it was only legal because the laws are vague and the courts are biased. Every Presidential election has been biased for decades. Only half the eligible citizens vote. This is clearly by design. Every two years, the media show the long lines of people waiting for many hours to vote. Inequality is obvious because I can mail my ballot without even a stamp. Even the pre-paid postage is not uniform in California, either. Some counties have pre-paid postage and some do not. Many citizens do not have the ID needed to vote, generally documents sold by the states with varying laws and services. No wonder the turnout is only 50%. This cannot possibly be called "fair and square".
Harland Harrison

Again, there needs to be a benchmark for what we call fair, or what we call anything else. The Constitution is clear, laws are on the books, courts have set precedents, etc. Personal inabilities (listening to the media, not having a stamp in the house to mail a ballot, not having ID cards, not knowing what documents one needs to effectively navigate systems, not voting) are not the responsibility of the courts, voting systems, or even the media. "Fair" still remains whether or not events proceeded legally and constitutionally. Again, if we as a nation do not like what is written, we vote to change it. Or am I hearing the argument that the populace is too helpless to bring about beneficial change via lawful channels?

So, after all this most interesting discussion so far, it appears that petition signers wish to 1) displace a president-elect chosen via currently established channels, 2) replace him with someone else, no matter who, 3) possibly obtain a couple of electoral votes for Johnson via the Electoral College, 4) accelerate the movement to eliminate the Electoral College. If this is the case, I will abstain from signing.

Marcy