In 2016, there was an outcry for E*******l Delegates who were suppose to v**e for Donald Trump to instead v**e for Hillary Clinton... And those Delegates could do this, because the US Constitution doesn't stipulate them to v**e for who they are suppose to...
The fact USA Citizens were requesting such a misappropriate action is in and of itself deplorable... And it proves that legal actions need to take place to never have it occur...
An Amendment needs to be passed and Ratified that simply states:
States must have their E*******l Delegates cast their v**es for the winners of their own State's P**********l and Vice-P**********l E******ns.
JimMe wrote:
In 2016, there was an outcry for E*******l Delegates who were suppose to v**e for Donald Trump to instead v**e for Hillary Clinton... And those Delegates could do this, because the US Constitution doesn't stipulate them to v**e for who they are suppose to...
The fact USA Citizens were requesting such a misappropriate action is in and of itself deplorable... And it proves that legal actions need to take place to never have it occur...
An Amendment needs to be passed and Ratified that simply states:
States must have their E*******l Delegates cast their v**es for the winners of their own State's P**********l and Vice-P**********l E******ns.
In 2016, there was an outcry for E*******l Delegat... (
show quote)
Eh, it doesn't matter. The majority of e*****rs always do that anyway and I don't think an e******n has ever been decided by someone v****g their conscience instead of for the minority. The outcry in 2016 was because the majority v**ed for Hillary but the minority candidate was elected anyway. Personally I think it worked out the way it should have worked out because majorities can always change and while it worked against Democrats, in this case, it could well work in Democrats favor in future e******ns.
What needs to be understood is that T***p w*n by only 77,000 v**es spread over three states so if Hillary had simply paid more attention to any one of three states she would have won instead of lost the e******n. While I think there were many factors that worked against Hillary it still comes down to her failure as a candidate for the reason she lost the e******n. 2016 was an e******n where the worst of two horrible candidates won. I don't see that happening again which is why I don't see a reason to tear up how the framers wrote the Constitution.
PeterS wrote:
Eh, it doesn't matter. The majority of e*****rs always do that anyway and I don't think an e******n has ever been decided by someone v****g their conscience instead of for the minority. The outcry in 2016 was because the majority v**ed for Hillary but the minority candidate was elected anyway. Personally I think it worked out the way it should have worked out because majorities can always change and while it worked against Democrats, in this case, it could well work in Democrats favor in future e******ns.
What needs to be understood is that T***p w*n by only 77,000 v**es spread over three states so if Hillary had simply paid more attention to any one of three states she would have won instead of lost the e******n. While I think there were many factors that worked against Hillary it still comes down to her failure as a candidate for the reason she lost the e******n. 2016 was an e******n where the worst of two horrible candidates won. I don't see that happening again which is why I don't see a reason to tear up how the framers wrote the Constitution.
Eh, it doesn't matter. The majority of e*****rs al... (
show quote)
Agree with your statement. The E*******l College "levels the playing field" between the large populated coastal areas (California, New York, etc.) and the small middle states. Which means - you gotta fight for your political life EVERYWHERE. As stated above - Hilary did not do the job - so she deserved to lose. That is the beauty of the E*******l College; it means that EVERY v**er needs to be touched; every v**ers v**e counts.
JimMe wrote:
In 2016, there was an outcry for E*******l Delegates who were suppose to v**e for Donald Trump to instead v**e for Hillary Clinton... And those Delegates could do this, because the US Constitution doesn't stipulate them to v**e for who they are suppose to...
The fact USA Citizens were requesting such a misappropriate action is in and of itself deplorable... And it proves that legal actions need to take place to never have it occur...
An Amendment needs to be passed and Ratified that simply states:
States must have their E*******l Delegates cast their v**es for the winners of their own State's P**********l and Vice-P**********l E******ns.
In 2016, there was an outcry for E*******l Delegat... (
show quote)
We could accomplish the same thing by geting rid of them and ,just have popular v**e!
Lonewolf wrote:
We could accomplish the same thing by geting rid of them and ,just have popular v**e!
Read post above, or better yet since you have trouble with words, have someone else read it to you real slow.
I remember in 1976 one of the delegates v**ed for Howard the Duck . I don't recall if anyone got in trouble for it.
PeterS wrote:
Eh, it doesn't matter. The majority of e*****rs always do that anyway and I don't think an e******n has ever been decided by someone v****g their conscience instead of for the minority. The outcry in 2016 was because the majority v**ed for Hillary but the minority candidate was elected anyway. Personally I think it worked out the way it should have worked out because majorities can always change and while it worked against Democrats, in this case, it could well work in Democrats favor in future e******ns.
What needs to be understood is that T***p w*n by only 77,000 v**es spread over three states so if Hillary had simply paid more attention to any one of three states she would have won instead of lost the e******n. While I think there were many factors that worked against Hillary it still comes down to her failure as a candidate for the reason she lost the e******n. 2016 was an e******n where the worst of two horrible candidates won. I don't see that happening again which is why I don't see a reason to tear up how the framers wrote the Constitution.
Eh, it doesn't matter. The majority of e*****rs al... (
show quote)
Peter,
I'm impressed, perfectly, constitutionally, literate, bipartisanshiply stated.
Jack
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.