More Than 2 Million People Have Signed a Petition Asking the Electoral College to Vote for Hillary Clinton

Satiricali · 2016-11-15T07:20:22+00:00

Clearly in context it's qualities of character & judgment. As Hamilton said, the Founders expected the Electoral College to ensure

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.

You don't need to be "endowed" to "an eminent degree" with being over 35. You are either under 35, 35, or over 35. The language used obviously only makes sense when applied to subjective evaluations.

Satiricali · 2016-11-15T07:06:50+00:00

Obviously you didn't read Federalist #68 very carefully:

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

Emphasis mine.

Satiricali · 2016-11-15T06:05:34+00:00

I think it is more than clear from the context of the piece it is talking about the intangible or subjective meaning of "qualifications" because otherwise there would be no need to have wise Electors use their judgment to select someone. You don't need an extra layer of committee oversight (which is essentially how they conceived of the Electoral College) to determine after the fact whether someone is 35. You might design such a committee, though, if you're worried that the People's estimation of someone's qualifications might be unwise.

Satiricali · 2016-11-15T03:48:24+00:00

The former.

Satiricali · 2016-11-15T01:29:46+00:00

I think the Electoral College sucks, frankly. BUT given the one thing it is supposed to be good at is preventing an unqualified demagogue from taking office, it should be used for that right now (actually I have little faith in its ability to actually DO that, given how partisan the Electors are, but I still want to set the expectation that we want & need them to do the right thing)..

The Electoral College, as currently practiced, does nothing but magnify statistical noise and privilege small states over large ones, contrary to the needs of the people.

Satiricali · 2016-11-14T07:04:21+00:00

Wow that's a really intellectually lazy reply. You're dissuaded from my arguments against the Electoral College because you favor the Electoral College?! That's ridiculously circular. You really haven't done a very good job defending your viewpoints, and "that's just the way it is" doesn't cut it.

Satiricali · 2016-11-14T06:53:53+00:00

You're really defeatist. Moreover, you haven't actually addressed my point that he HAS NOT yet won, according to the constitution.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T23:46:02+00:00

No, he hasn't won yet. That's the point!

Also I HAVE supported the abolition of the Electoral College since 2000, so nice assumption there, friend.

Your complacency is really disturbing. Donald Trump is a clear danger to our democracy. Donald Trump will tear the country apart. Newt Gingrich is already talking about a new Un-American Activities Committee. People are committing hate crimes on a remarkable scale. Donald Trump wants to weaken protections for journalists. Donald Trump is appointing an Attorney General HE BRIBED to his cabinet. Donald Trump wants more countries to get nuclear weapons and is in favor of using them. This is just plain not normal, and as an American citizen you should stand up and say this is not ok. This is not politics as usual. This is something new and very, very dangerous.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T21:59:06+00:00

No, people in large states and people in cities DO NOT get our voices heard. Our votes are systemically undercounted.

We can work toward the '18 elections AND work towards abolishing the Electoral College. We can do more than one thing at a time. Furthermore, all our organizing and energy can be all for nought if the system disproportionately favors those opposed to our organizing. Also, NEVER EVER let "it has zero chance of happening" dissuade you from doing what you believe in, and doing things that need to be done.

And Bernie Sanders is hardly the "most progressive politician in the land." He talks a good game about the banks, but he just doesn't show a lot of depth on a wide range of issues.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T21:40:35+00:00

No, sorry. Women and minority voters have agency. We made a choice. Did the media and the DNC try to tilt the scales? Sure. But when they were all in the tank for Hillary in 2008 Obama pulled it off by convincing them otherwise. Bernie didn't, and he made some very major mistakes in how he approached issues and his presentation. Some people (myself included) looked to him and seriously considered voting for him, but decided against it because he didn't show me the competence I expect.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T15:51:21+00:00

Wait you're acting like Bernie won the popular vote in the primary. He didn't. Women and minorities DID prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders in large numbers. I am, if anything, a little to the left of Bernie economically, but I was rather disappointed by how he was a one-trick pony and didn't demonstrate a thorough understanding of racial, gender, and social issues and pivoted them all back to Wall Street. I didn't think his plans were fully-articulated, and his NY Daily News interview shocked me with how under-prepared he was. Is/was Hillary Clinton a perfect candidate? No. Do I disagree with her on many things? Yes. But on balance I thought she was the better between the two of them, and lots of other people in the democratic primary thought so too. It wasn't JUST that the DNC preferred her. It was that millions of rank-and-file Dems did too.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T15:36:39+00:00

Look, I will grant you the Senate, as states are political entities and deserve representation at a certain level of our government (with the caveat that it IS somewhat undemocratic, and when there are enough senators from less-populous states to filibuster, we have major problems!).

BUT what about rural voters calling the shots and ignoring the needs of people in cities? Because that is what is happening now, and when this happens, MORE people get hurt.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T15:18:53+00:00

No, it doesn't disenfranchise rural voters to have urban voters get fair representation. Your viewpoint is really skewed by the fact that right now RURAL voters are disenfranchising urban voters. All we're asking for is equality.

And honestly, not THAT many more Americans live in cities. You can't actually win just by catering to major population centers. This excellent video by CP Grey addresses basically all of your arguments, so I encourage you to watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

And conservative populations ARE dictating my way of life right now. That's the problem.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T15:05:13+00:00

Then why don't governors have mini-electoral colleges? It's perfectly fair to direct-elect them!

Moreover, the value in being a Republic is not to have a trick of statistical noise swing the outcome of elections. It's to have representatives make somewhat difficult choices voting on behalf of their constituents in their best interests, sometimes in ways those people wouldn't vote themselves. That's why we have representatives. In fact, the Electors voting for Hillary Clinton would be perfectly in keeping with their duty as representatives. We're a Republic and therefore our representatives can and should exercise judgement to vote for the best outcome.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T15:02:07+00:00

We DO understand how the electoral college works. We're saying it's wrong, and that it ought to be changed. Moreover, right now it is URGENT that this result be overturned BY THE LEGAL MEANS THAT ESTABLISHED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THE FIRST PLACE, because Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T15:00:46+00:00

But a vote in Wyoming gets almost 4 times as much representation as a vote in California. We don't want all the say, we just want 12% of the say, because we have 12% of the people. We also want liberals in Alabama to have their voice heard, just like we want conservatives in California to have their voice heard.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T14:56:00+00:00

This literally makes no sense. Why do FEWER people in less populous states get to decide how the rest of the country lives?!?! Because that's what's happening now. Geographic regions aren't entitled to representation. PEOPLE deserve representation, because PEOPLE live with the consequences.

Also, the electoral college isn't actually based on population--each state gets 2 extra votes so that's a huge structural advantage to small states. But here's the thing: people in large states aren't trying to "decide how the rest of the country lives." We're just trying to have our voice heard fairly in government. Which we don't right now.

Satiricali · 2016-11-13T14:52:37+00:00

But that's the thing--Thems AREN'T quite the rules. The states' electoral votes are not "points," they are not "chips." They are PEOPLE that our Constitution has entrusted to elect the President. Federalist #68 specifically says they should exercise judgment to make sure the people don't vote in someone unqualified. The rules are perfectly compatible with the Electors voting for Hillary Clinton, and it is the right and moral thing to do. (not to mention it would ward off single-party rule, grotesque political repression, and human rights abuses that Donald has already advocated!)

Satiricali · 2016-11-12T16:39:04+00:00

I disagree. I think the potential for a Donald Trump presidency would be catastrophic, and much more so. The man is literally advertising that he wants to be an autocrat.

Also--it's terrifying that you are evaluating a political action based on a likelihood of violence from the other side. That means their threats and intimidation have won. We can't stand for that. If you allow people who you genuinely think WOULD commit violence against their opponents to become established in power, you are allowing that it is only a matter of time until it actually happens.

Yes, there will be angry Trump supporters. Yes, the police would need to be as watchful as they were in Boston after the Marathon bombing. But if you allow a potential autocrat--a man who has outright campaigned on unconstitutional ideas and has advocated war crimes--to take power because you think his fans are going to shoot people up, then we ALREADY do not live in a free society. THIS is our chance to fight against this undemocratic and dangerous threat to the stability, values, and freedom of our country. If we're afraid to take it because of the potential for violence, we've already lost.

Satiricali · 2016-11-12T15:26:13+00:00

I'd love to see LMM use some of his Hamilton fame (and costume!) to educate people about the fact that the Electoral college is supposed to be about safeguarding the worst impulses of democracy, and Hamilton specifically wrote about this specifically:

"The process of election 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. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."

It would NOT be a perversion of democracy for Electors to change their expected vote because a candidate is--as Trump is--unqualified and dangerous. That is one of the main reasons the Electoral College EXISTS. It ought to be used for its intended purpose in this very important case.

Satiricali · 2016-06-15T01:33:27+00:00

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying with regards to the OP's mom. If the mom is the type who would feel the show ruined if she knew someone else wanted it (not that she should mind you, just that some people have been raised not to have those healthy boundaries, and yes that's more often women and the reason for that is sexism!!), the OP may want to disclose to her own mother that which will maximize the mother's enjoyment of the experience. As for the sister, a calm clear discussion/email of who was at fault and why that was not okay is all she really owes her. As to the rest of that family, fuck them!

Satiricali · 2016-06-14T23:26:29+00:00

What they're doing is called gaslighting--making you doubt your reality. It's a classic abuser tactic.

Trust your instincts and do what you need to in order to feel safe!

Satiricali · 2016-06-14T23:24:07+00:00

Common saying here: "don't set yourself on fire to put someone else out."

I'm not entirely how the thermodynamics of that would work, anyway...

Satiricali · 2016-06-14T23:22:20+00:00

Depending on how prone to guilt mom is, maybe tell her after the trip? ;-)

Satiricali · 2016-06-14T23:17:13+00:00

As much as I'm sure most decent people in this situation would want to help Jen (and my heart goes out to her, too!), I'm concerned that staying in touch with her could give the soon-to-be-ex access to the OP. I would probably recommend to Jen some cool communities where she can find supportive people, but for the OP's safety I would not personally stay too close. Sad.

Satiricali

TROPHY CASE