Trump lost the popular vote

[laughing dog]

She got the most votes which is what winning the popular vote means. It's just like a race - the person who comes in ahead of everyone else is the winner.

But winning the popular vote is not the criterion the USA uses to determine who gets the Presidency. So why does it matter so much to those who feel the need to spin this into something else?

That is what I have been asking. However, for some reason the Democrat talking heads on every panel show I have seen since the election feel compelled to point out the popular vote - even if it has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

IMO, there are 3 possible motivations: 1) they are starting to get the momentum moving towards amending the Constitution to allow the Presidency to be determined by the winner of the popular vote, 2) they are spouting sour grapes, and 3) they are trying to tarnish Trump's victory,

 

[skepticalbip]

for some reason the Democrat talking heads on every panel show I have seen since the election feel compelled to point out the national popular vote -

Even dismal says that the popular vote is worth pointing out (but only in a "what if" scenario that would have made Trump win it.)

I'm not trying to get in Dismal's head but could it be that the only reason he is talking about the national popular vote is because it is a theme that has been pounded by Democrats since the election?

 

[Elixir]

Even dismal says that the popular vote is worth pointing out (but only in a "what if" scenario that would have made Trump win it.)

I'm not trying to get in Dismal's head but could it be that the only reason he is talking about the national popular vote is because it is a theme that has been pounded by Democrats since the election?

Do you imagine that had HRC "won" the electoral college, and Trump had taken the popular vote by 2,500,000+ votes, he and Faux news, Breitbart et al would not be howling like banshees? It's quite remarkable enough for mention, being as unprecedented as it is.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is what I have been asking. However, for some reason the Democrat talking heads on every panel show I have seen since the election feel compelled to point out the popular vote - even if it has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

IMO, there are 3 possible motivations: 1) they are starting to get the momentum moving towards amending the Constitution to allow the Presidency to be determined by the winner of the popular vote, 2) they are spouting sour grapes, and 3) they are trying to tarnish Trump's victory,

Those all sound reasonable. But I would add a forth possibility - they could still be in denial that they lost so are grasping at anything to justify their refusal to accept the results of the election.

 

[Ford]

IMO, there are 3 possible motivations: 1) they are starting to get the momentum moving towards amending the Constitution to allow the Presidency to be determined by the winner of the popular vote, 2) they are spouting sour grapes, and 3) they are trying to tarnish Trump's victory,

Those all sound reasonable. But I would add a forth possibility - they could still be in denial that they lost so are grasping at anything to justify their refusal to accept the results of the election.

That sounds somewhat familiar. In fact I'm pretty sure that the current President-elect was one of many people on the right who spent quite a lot of time and money trying to bring into question the legitimacy of the current President.

 

[skepticalbip]

Those all sound reasonable. But I would add a forth possibility - they could still be in denial that they lost so are grasping at anything to justify their refusal to accept the results of the election.

That sounds somewhat familiar. In fact I'm pretty sure that the current President-elect was one of many people on the right who spent quite a lot of time and money trying to bring into question the legitimacy of the current President.

So you are in agreement with me? There are fucking partisan idiots on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[Ford]

That sounds somewhat familiar. In fact I'm pretty sure that the current President-elect was one of many people on the right who spent quite a lot of time and money trying to bring into question the legitimacy of the current President.

So you are in agreement with me? There are fucking partisan idiots on both ends of the political spectrum.

I would call it an instance of "you reap what you sow."

 

[Elixir]

That sounds somewhat familiar. In fact I'm pretty sure that the current President-elect was one of many people on the right who spent quite a lot of time and money trying to bring into question the legitimacy of the current President.

So you are in agreement with me? There are fucking partisan idiots on both ends of the political spectrum.

Was that ever in doubt by ANYONE here?
What is the left-wing equivalent of a "birther" though? People who called shrub a draft dodger?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not quite. The States determine how their Electoral votes are to be allocated so different States can do it differently. However, once those votes are delivered to Congress, that isn't the end of it. The Congress must certify the count before it is binding. Any particular Electoral vote or votes can be challenged by a member of Congress and changed after debate if found to be improper.

A revolt by members of the Electoral College would have to involve a conspiracy that included the State governments and the U.S. Congress to be successful.

I disagree.

In my assessment (based on what the US Constitution says; see in particular the 12th Amendment), the states can pass laws telling electors how to vote, but those laws aren't binding for the electors.
As for Congress, the choice is not up to them, either, but again to the electors. The constitution says: "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". But that does not give Congress the right to refuse a rightfully elected person.

If over 50% of electors decided to pick, say, Romney as the POTUS, then from US constitutional perspective, the next POTUS would be Romney, provided that he accepted.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not quite. The States determine how their Electoral votes are to be allocated so different States can do it differently. However, once those votes are delivered to Congress, that isn't the end of it. The Congress must certify the count before it is binding. Any particular Electoral vote or votes can be challenged by a member of Congress and changed after debate if found to be improper.

A revolt by members of the Electoral College would have to involve a conspiracy that included the State governments and the U.S. Congress to be successful.

I disagree.

In my assessment (based on what the US Constitution says; see in particular the 12th Amendment), the states can pass laws telling electors how to vote, but those laws aren't binding for the electors.
As for Congress, the choice is not up to them, either, but again to the electors. The constitution says: "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". But that does not give Congress the right to refuse a rightfully elected person.

If over 50% of electors decided to pick, say, Romney as the POTUS, then from US constitutional perspective, the next POTUS would be Romney, provided that he accepted.

You are free to disagree and interpret the Constitution any way you wish. However, the interpretation of Constitutional scholars and the existing laws and procedures are what I described.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I disagree.

In my assessment (based on what the US Constitution says; see in particular the 12th Amendment), the states can pass laws telling electors how to vote, but those laws aren't binding for the electors.
As for Congress, the choice is not up to them, either, but again to the electors. The constitution says: "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". But that does not give Congress the right to refuse a rightfully elected person.

If over 50% of electors decided to pick, say, Romney as the POTUS, then from US constitutional perspective, the next POTUS would be Romney, provided that he accepted.

You are free to disagree and interpret the Constitution any way you wish. However, the interpretation of Constitutional scholars and the existing laws and procedures are what I described.

If by "existing laws" you mean some state laws, yes, there are such laws (in 29 states), but even then, most such laws only penalize the elector, without saying the vote is void. In any case, but the constitution says the Electoral College decides, not the states. The states can only validly pick their electors, but not their electors' votes.

As for scholars, if your claim is that all scholars agree with your views, I ask for evidence.
If your claim is that most of them do, then I ask for evidence.

 

[blastula]

What I would like to see is the candidate who won 50%+1 assume the office, and since nobody did therefore nobody should get the job.

Trump got 57% of electoral votes.

Not yet he hasn't. If we want to be technical.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are free to disagree and interpret the Constitution any way you wish. However, the interpretation of Constitutional scholars and the existing laws and procedures are what I described.

If by "existing laws" you mean some state laws, yes, there are such laws (in 29 states), but even then, most such laws only penalize the elector, without saying the vote is void. In any case, but the constitution says the Electoral College decides, not the states. The states can only validly pick their electors, but not their electors' votes.

As for scholars, if your claim is that all scholars agree with your views, I ask for evidence.
If your claim is that most of them do, then I ask for evidence.

Not at all. I stated off the bat that States allocate their Electoral votes differently. It was the laws and procedures that pertain to those votes once they are delivered to Congress that runs afoul of your scenario.

 

[blastula]

As the law stands now, most electors can vote however they want. Only three states have laws that say they will only count a vote from a faithful elector, but even then it's possible those laws couldn't stand a constitutional challenge.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not at all. I stated off the bat that States allocate their Electoral votes differently. It was the laws and procedures that pertain to those votes once they are delivered to Congress that runs afoul of your scenario.

I don't understand what you're saying.
I have a couple of questions:

1. Is your claim that all scholars agree with your view, or that most do? (or is it something else)
In any case, I will ask for evidence in support of that view.
In the meantime, I would post two links:

https://medium.com/equal-citizens/richard-briffault-the-faithless-elector-ba7b50fc8ba1

This article indicates there is disagreement, but points out that:

Most scholarly opinion agrees that as envisioned by the Framers the electors were supposed to exercise their independent judgment, albeit perhaps with some attention to the will of the people.

http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college

In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

Maybe you have better evidence. If so, please present it.

2. Are you talking about federal or state laws, or the constitution?
If you're talking about state laws telling electors how to vote, again 29 states do that, but 21 states do not do that. In my assessment (and that of many experts), electors may constitutionally disregard them, and regardless of whether the punishments are valid, their faithless votes are valid.
If you're talking about federal laws, then there are no federal laws telling electors whom to vote for (e.g., https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html)
If you're talking about the constitution, it does not tell electors whom to vote for. Moreover, it does not give Congress the power to reject faithless votes. It only says Congress will count the votes.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't understand what you're saying.
I have a couple of questions:

1. Is your claim that all scholars agree with your view, or that most do? (or is it something else)

That question has to be some sort of logical fallacy. I can't imagine any question that would not have some descention from at least a few "experts". I was referring to the opinions of Constitutional scholars on which the the existing laws and procedures are based.

In any case, I will ask for evidence in support of that view.
In the meantime, I would post two links:

https://medium.com/equal-citizens/richard-briffault-the-faithless-elector-ba7b50fc8ba1

This article indicates there is disagreement, but points out that:

Most scholarly opinion agrees that as envisioned by the Framers the electors were supposed to exercise their independent judgment, albeit perhaps with some attention to the will of the people.

http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college

In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

Maybe you have better evidence. If so, please present it.

2. Are you talking about federal or state laws, or the constitution?
If you're talking about state laws telling electors how to vote, again 29 states do that, but 21 states do not do that. In my assessment (and that of many experts), electors may constitutionally disregard them, and regardless of whether the punishments are valid, their faithless votes are valid.
If you're talking about federal laws, then there are no federal laws telling electors whom to vote for (e.g., https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html)
If you're talking about the constitution, it does not tell electors whom to vote for. Moreover, it does not give Congress the power to reject faithless votes. It only says Congress will count the votes.

Would you settle for a U.S. Government site explaining the procedure they follow rather than someone's opinions expressed in a blog?

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/roles.html#congress

Responsibilities of Congress in the Presidential Election

House and Senate staff come to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) to inspect the Certificates of Vote in late December. Because the statutory procedure prescribes that the Certificates of Vote sent to the President of the Senate be held under seal until Congress opens and counts them in joint session, the Congress depends on the OFR to ensure the facial legal sufficiency of Certificates. If any State’s Certificate fails to reach the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate calls on OFR to deliver duplicate originals in its possession to complete the set held by Congress. After the 1988 general election, the President of the Senate called for nineteen of the Certificates of Vote held by the OFR. For the 1992 election, the OFR supplied the Congress with two missing Certificates of Vote.

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2017 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate. The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made. If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15.

You are welcome to chase the code sections cited for further clarification.

 

[dismal]

What a contortion... you might as well say that the US "won the battle of Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941", since there was only one "legitimately" victorious side in WWII.

Perhaps if you look up what the word "legitimate" means and it's etymology my point will make sense.

 

[blastula]

Re objections by Congress, the code language is a bit vague, "the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified." Can they reject on any grounds, so long as they agree? Can a rejection be challenged in court?

Should note that all these options if tried could work for or against any candidate.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That question has to be some sort of logical fallacy. I can't imagine any question that would not have some descention from at least a few "experts". I was referring to the opinions of Constitutional scholars on which the the existing laws and procedures are based.

First, you're accusing me of making some sort of logical fallacy. While the accusation is unclear, you are mistaken. I'm asking some question after you made a claim.

Second, what laws and procedures?
If you're talking about federal laws and procedures, as I pointed out, there is no federal law telling electors how to vote.
If you like government websites, you can read that in the following government website:
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.

If you're talking about state laws and procedures, I will point out that:
1. 29 states + the District of Columbia have laws telling the electors have to vote. The other 21 states do not.
One source: https://www.salon.com/2016/12/01/sk...ing-their-protest-votes-against-donald-trump/
You can find more sources if you like - you're the one making the claims after all.
2. The vast majority of those 29 states do not have laws attempting to nullify the votes of faithless electors, but impossing some penalties. To the best of my knowledge, only two states attempt that. I doubt that such laws would pass constitutional muster, and so do many scholars. But you have provided no support for your claim.

Would you settle for a U.S. Government site explaining the procedure they follow rather than someone's opinions expressed in a blog?

That would be some evidence about what they do, but clearly not enough to establish that all or most experts agree with you, let alone that what they do is constitutional.
Regardless, if you presented any evidence at all beyond your claim that you're right, that would be an improvement. So far, you're the one who made an obscure claim about experts, but so far, have not provided any evidence to back it up beyond your claim that it's true.

You are welcome to chase the code sections cited for further clarification.

First, in all of the cases in which there were unfaithful electors, Congress did not reject their votes. And when there was a proposal for such rejection, the proposal was defeated, after it was argued that it would be unconstitutional, as you can read in the first link I provided.

Source: https://medium.com/equal-citizens/richard-briffault-the-faithless-elector-ba7b50fc8ba1

In 1969, for the first and so far only time, Congress considered whether to reject the vote of a faithless elector as not “regularly given” within the meaning of the Electoral Count Act.

You're welcome to provide further sources.

Second, fine, let's chase the code sections cited.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

The code does not say what's "regularly", and the wording does not provide support for your claim about the constitution, let alone your claim about scholars. In fact, you've not provided evidence of a single scholar who agrees with you. Now, I do know there are such scholars, but I don't see any good reason to think they're a majority. Do you have any evidence?

 

[barbos]

Clinton lost popular vote too .... to Apathy. More people voted for Apathy than Clinton.