2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

As much as I hate Trump, the Electors overturning the election and voting in Hillary would be about worst case scenario.

Right. Like many things it would not be illegal per se but it would break tradition and unwritten rules, and it is those that really make our system function.

[Habbaku]

I tried to find betting odds on faithless electors tomorrow but couldn't find any.

The electoral votes aren't even supposed to be counted until January 6th.  I wonder if the electors will spill the beans beforehand?

[HisMajestyBOB]

As much as I hate Trump, the Electors overturning the election and voting in Hillary would be about worst case scenario.

Right. Like many things it would not be illegal per se but it would break tradition and unwritten rules, and it is those that really make our system function.

And that's why the Democrats will continue to lose ground. The Republicans have no qualms about breaking tradition or unwritten rules if it helps them get and maintain power.

[Valmy]

As much as I hate Trump, the Electors overturning the election and voting in Hillary would be about worst case scenario.

Right. Like many things it would not be illegal per se but it would break tradition and unwritten rules, and it is those that really make our system function.

And that's why the Democrats will continue to lose ground. The Republicans have no qualms about breaking tradition or unwritten rules if it helps them get and maintain power.

Increasingly this is so. Or at least the ones in North Carolina anyway.

Now that the Obamapocalypse is about to end maybe they will pivot.

[Maximus]

And that's why the Democrats will continue to lose ground. The Republicans have no qualms about breaking tradition or unwritten rules if it helps them get and maintain power.

And some people are still calling them conservatives. 

[LaCroix]

dems keep losing because people aren't buying what they're selling, not because republicans are badasses at congress

[alfred russel]

And that's why the Democrats will continue to lose ground. The Republicans have no qualms about breaking tradition or unwritten rules if it helps them get and maintain power.

And some people are still calling them conservatives. 

Maybe they are just old school conservatives: like from back in the day when democracy was a left wing idea.

[Valmy]

dems keep losing because people aren't buying what they're selling, not because republicans are badasses at congress

Sure. Not related at all to what we are talking about but sure.

[derspiess]

As much as I hate Trump, the Electors overturning the election and voting in Hillary would be about worst case scenario.

Right. Like many things it would not be illegal per se but it would break tradition and unwritten rules, and it is those that really make our system function.

And that's why the Democrats will continue to lose ground. The Republicans have no qualms about breaking tradition or unwritten rules if it helps them get and maintain power.

So there's no pressure/harassment on electors to change their votes?

[Valmy]

So there's no pressure/harassment on electors to change their votes?

There is a difference though. To the best of my knowledge the electors thing is driven by activists.

Lawmakers breaking centuries of tradition by rewriting the laws as lame ducks is driven by elected officials.

The both are very dangerous precedents though. Worrisome.

And of course: DOOOOOOOOOOOMED. I hope you have your hacienda in Argentina to escape to.

[Legbiter]

A Minnesota Democratic elector has become the first "faithless elector" of Monday's nationwide Electoral College vote after refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Muhammad Abdurrahman, a former Bernie Sanders delegate to the Democratic National Convention, attempted to vote for a presidential ticket of Sanders and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, according to The Associated Press's Kyle Potter.

Abdurrahman's vote was declared invalid and an alternate elector was appointed, allowing the state to go ahead and deliver its 10 electoral votes for Hillary Clinton

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311055-minnesota-elector-refuses-to-back-clinton

Bernouts. 

[Valmy]

And this kind of shows how the system takes care of it. The states control the electors so most states will take care of it if they decide to go nuts, especially if it actually decides an election.

[Admiral Yi]

And this kind of shows how the system takes care of it. The states control the electors so most states will take care of it, especially if it actually decides an election.

My understanding is electors are animals of federal constitutional law, and in fact states have zero control over them once they have been selected.

[Valmy]

And this kind of shows how the system takes care of it. The states control the electors so most states will take care of it, especially if it actually decides an election.

My understanding is electors are animals of federal constitutional law, and in fact states have zero control over them once they have been selected.

I think you are wrong about that. I think the electors are appointed by the states and have laws telling them who they can vote for. For example Nebraska and Maine both have those funky rules for their congressional districts.

[Admiral Yi]

I think you are wrong about that. I think the electors are appointed by the states and have laws telling them who they can vote for. For example Nebraska and Maine both have those funky rules for their congressional districts.

The only thing I've ever read about related to state control is fines that can be imposed for not voting the way you're supposed to.  Which would be a pointless law if in fact the state could control your vote.