Donald Trump continues to shock the world as he endlessly fires off derogatory, lie-laden tweets and nominates generals and fossil-fuel zealots to his Cabinet posts. Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has climbed to 2.8 million votes, yet Trump retains his lead in electoral votes with 306 to Clinton’s 232. The disparity has many questioning the existence of the Electoral College, just as Trump did on election night in 2012, when he mistakenly thought Mitt Romney was winning the popular vote but losing to Barack Obama in the electoral vote count.
So there IS, now, some reason for hope--that our species won't go extinct BEFORE 2040: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-runaway-greenhouse-event.html
It certainly feels that voter suppression and Russian interference were enough to give Trump the victory, and if not, certainly James Comey's behavior about a week before the election put Trump over the top. We did not get the candidate that the people wanted or that least the preferred candidate because of maneuvers by the Republicans and the Russians that corrupted the election process. I doubt if enough electors are going to switch votes and even if they do the unexpected I doubt if the House of Representatives would do anything but give the election to Trump.
I'm sorry, but I think this is an extremely bad idea. First, it will never work. Second, it would be even worse if it DID work. If it did work, it would make the popular vote irrelevant for all future Presidential Elections that are close. Whatever the outcome, an army of lobbyist could simply go after the electors, and change the vote. I have problems with the Electoral College myself, but that is the system we have right now.
It would be wise to remember the 2004 election between Kerry and Bush. Bush won Ohio by around 100,000 votes, which tipped the election to him. If 50,000 voters had switched sides, Kerry would have won. Except Bush won by 3 million in the popular vote. So, you would have a mirror image of what we have today...the Republican candidate winning the popular vote and the Democrat candidate the electoral vote. I can imagine the justifiable outrage that would have been felt if the Republicans had then attempted a revolt in the electoral college. Why not work on reforming the Democratic party instead of upending the election?
You make a strong argument bligh. If some of this (and other) energy was concentrated on building an actual opposition party absent sell-out quislings, and organizing the wide coalition of issues and people of conscience needed, the outcome would likely be far-more effective. Instead we are confronted by one after the other diversions from different quarters, and diverse issues to thwart the coalition needed to fight for real change - divide and conquer. Keep the faith....what's left anyway.....peace.
It is indeed hard to jump out of the frying pan when you can't jump far enough to land anywhere other than into the fire.
Except for your statement to reform the democratic party. From my perspective, the Democratic party is so corrupt it is way beyond reformation. And what more proof does one need than what happened to Bernie Sanders?
But Hillary won the popular vote. So why would electors not voting for her opponent "make the popular vote irrelevant"? I'm beginning to feel like I've stepped through a looking glass ...
Yes, I agree about Sanders. Perhaps they wanted to punish him for becoming an independent?
You meant independently honest, didn't you?