It would seem "easier" for the Democrats to select someone as a candidate who had a "dog's chance in Hell" winning the final race ... without playing a "racist" or "misogynist" card in order to intimidate voters into supporting the candidate out of fear of being labeled an offensive name.So are you sayin that you trust shrilLIARy as much as a Mexican around a fireworks factory ?
In other words .. someone with some sort of qualifications as an executive and/or manager of people in a crisis environment who was interested in focusing on ALL the citizens of the United States as opposed to a narrow group of contributors and ass-kissers.... and who isn't interested in selling their influence in the U.S. Government.
Driving a sub, removing (without replacing) insulation in public housing, and stuffing one's charitable slush fund are not the kinds of qualifications suitable for the job. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Quit yalls pissing and moaning. You fuking lost!!! Now grow the fuk up!!! From the words of yalls soon to be Dear ex-leader. "Go out and win an Election"I LIKE THIS
Do you dumb asses actually think any Senator or Congressperson would vote to have their State lose Electoral Votes?? If so, god I feel sorry for you!!!
Also do you think that 38 States would ratify this??? NO FUKING WAY!!! Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY
Please tell me the specific words in the constitution that force an elector to vote with the popular vote in their state. Just quote them right here. Should be easy since I've already provided the relevant text. Originally Posted by PitfallIf I remember correctly, it's the states that set that requirement. The Constitution directs the states to regulate how electors are chosen. Most states require electors to vote for the winner of the state.
Please tell me the specific words in the constitution that force an elector to vote with the popular vote in their state. Just quote them right here. Should be easy since I've already provided the relevant text. Originally Posted by PitfallTypical.
If I remember correctly, it's the states that set that requirement. The Constitution directs the states to regulate how electors are chosen. Most states require electors to vote for the winner of the state. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyYou are correct.
Post a quote of the provision in the U.S. Constitution in which it states that Electors can vote for whomever they wish to vote.I DID
Bambino -
Great Post...... After looking up the final results, it turns out that Manhattan
voted for Clinton over Trump by about 8 to 1...(!!!!).
Usually a candidate carries his/her home town, but not in this election.
The rest of New York City boroughs and Los Angeles County voted for Clinton
by about 3 to 1.
So your thesis appears CORRECT..
And the rest Originally Posted by tyred
Please tell me the specific words in the constitution that force an elector to vote with the popular vote in their state. Just quote them right here. Should be easy since I've already provided the relevant text. Originally Posted by PitfallIt's like a number of laws. One document sets up the basic rule (each state decides how they will choose electors) and each determines how they will do that.
"As specified by the Constitution, the President was chosen by the Electoral College. In 1788, the method for selecting electors was decided by each state legislature—by public vote in some states and by legislative selection in others. Each state had as many electors as senators and representatives. The election was administered only in ten of the states because Rhode Island and North Carolina had yet to ratify the Constitution and a quarreling New York failed to choose electors in time. Each elector was given two votes to cast for President. Washington received the support of every one of the electors, each of whom cast one of the two ballots for him. John Adams, who received thirty-four votes, was the runner-up and was thus named vice president." (Source)