Oh Dear, The Anti Democracy Brigade Are At It Again!

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38364137
How many faithless electors do you think they can muster? 39?

[Quizmonster]

How can it possibly be "anti-demcratic" for the agreed democratic process of electing a President in the USA to proceed in precisely the way it is established to proceed?
Given that Clinton gained several million more votes from the people themselves than Trump did, surely that is already undemocratic!
I have no axe to grind whichever way it pans out, as it happens.

[ToraToraTora]

Trump won the election under the rules they are trying to get the college voters to become faithless. Sounds like the usual sour grapes to me. The numbers for each side are irrelevant, less that 30% voted for Blair in 1997 but under the rules he won, we accept that, end of.

[fiction-factory]

Look to me like the democratic process is being followed

[Mamyalynne]

Could we swap Grapes for Clementines as it Christmas ( and tedious).

[Quizmonster]

"Trump won the election under the rules."
That is precisely my point, but what you're forgetting is that the "rules" extend beyond the original election to what you are now drawing our attention to...namely, that there is a further vote to be considered!

[ToraToraTora]

ok so what's all the BS about numbers of votes got to do with it then QM? you can't have it both ways.

[fiction-factory]

I think QM was implying that you can't have it both ways either, TTT.
It would put the cat among the pigeons if Trump were to lose the vote (but he won't, and it may lead to further discontent with the establishment/ democratic process but it might also focus attention on whether the process needs to be changed going forwards

[Quizmonster]

TTT, the word democracy is from ancient Greek words, demos - the people - and kratos - strength. That's why I referred to (quote) "votes from the people themselves." And these votes amounted to millions more for Clinton. I am, of course, perfectly well aware that absolute numbers are irrelevant if an election is based on constituencies (as here) or 'colleges' (as in the USA).
As FF says above, YOU are the one wanting to have things both ways. Either this final vote you're whingeing about is part of the agreed democratic process of electing an American President or it isn't and - as you are perfectly well aware - it IS!

[jim360]

The catch TTT is that, by definition of the rules you are trying to insist Trump has already won under, he actually hasn't won at all yet. Because this -- the Electoral College -- is what matters, as you are so fond of reminding people who complain about how Clinton won the popular vote rather convincingly. So either you accept the current rules (in which case, asking the electoral college members to consider whether or not they should stick to their guided result is part of those rules), or you don't -- in which case, why *shouldn't* the electors reconsider, given that the popular vote went against Trump?

None of this is to say that the Electoral College should reject Trump, and on that basis I'm not sure that it achieves anything other than to look bad to appeal so strongly to them to do so. But it is hardly "anti-democracy" -- or, at least, no more anti-democracy than the existence of the system in the first place, that conspired to reject the overall will of the American people in favour of the American *states*.

[ToraToraTora]

the college is a formality you all know that, there have been no more than a handful of the faithless for centuries and the SGB you want 38 in one go! PMSL!

[Quizmonster]

Oh dear, nappy-changing time again!

[jim360]

It's only a formality because the electors have decided not to be faithless by convention, not rule. Either you respect the process -- which, in fact, is designed in part to ensure that the president is elected based on pragmatic as well as populist grounds -- or you don't. and respecting the process includes allowing for it to overturn the initial result.

[ToraToraTora]

yes i respect the rules and I reserve the right to berate those who seek to subvert the election result on a technicality.

[Kromovaracun]

It's not a technicality. It's written into the constitution.

As Jim says, this is entirely within keeping of the rules as established before the election. Pick what side you're on - the popular vote or the rules.

[ToraToraTora]

It's not me that keeps talking about irrelevant stats.

[Kromovaracun]

What irrelevant stats?

Look, you seem to think that Trump won the election and it is non-negotiable... when under the rules that he won under, it actually is. You are factually wrong.

If the Electoral College votes him in (as they probably will), then he'll become President in January. If they don't, then we'll have a crisis on our hands - the outcome of which may or may not be a Trump presidency.

Those are the facts, and it really doesn't matter whether or not you like them.

[Old_Geezer]

They have done.

[Quizmonster]

Bothering TTT with facts is a known waste of time. I truly don't understand why I - and others - keep on doing it.

[jim360]

Oh dear, the established US political process has reached a conclusion in its usual manner.

[Kromovaracun]

Oh, I thought the results weren't announced until January.