GMTA and all that!

..."bargaining" or "denial" stage of grief.

Unless actual irrefutable proof is provided that ballot boxes/election counts were tampered with, that is.

It is too dangerous to do anything but have the electoral college vote for whoever won their state's electoral votes. Trust me, you do not want to set the precedent of the electoral college or anyone being able to override the will of the voters (no matter how rigged/flawed the election was)

do

No need to worry about contesting Presidential elections, just "convince" 270 electors to vote for you and viola you are President of the United States

can only be a plus.

It would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, that is 2/3rd votes in BOTH House and approval by 37 or so states. The republicans just lost the popular vote by close to 3 million---where's the incentive for them to do this?

Trump's historic popular vote loss was a huge wake up call to the GOP that with California's and New York's massive population of Democrats, winning the national popular vote is from here on an impossibility.

They're going to defend the Electoral College now more than ever.

by getting 270 electoral college votes worth of states to agree to votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Why would they? Can anyone think of a situation where the GOP candidate would win the national popular vote but not the Electoral College?

This election pretty much put that notion to rest.

Kind of an unusual election.

That is how we elect Presidents in this country. So, the will of the people was that HE be President. If we can get decisive evidence that the election was rigged that would mean we get a new election, not that the electoral college just make Hillary PETOUS

...no wait, they didn't. In fact, they seem to have done quite a bit t isolate us from the direct will of the public.

unfortunately GOP are not reasonable.

...the GOP is looking for some sort of compromise?

They won everything.

and Hillary won a slim electoral victory while losing the popular vote (and there were doubts about whether China interfered on her behalf), would you consider it "reasonable" for Trump to take office while promising to stay only one term?

Me either.

You asked me what I thought.

one by one Rep's and trump voters are seeing the colossal mistake the country made in allowing trump to run. I don't think Pence is any better. If my memory serves me, there's no tradition of Electorates picking a VP.

Hillary would be the logical choice and the one term vow would allow them to save face. If it goes to the house they'll just pick Pence and call it a day.

The problems that trump brings to light are not singular to him. His whole tentative administration is rot with conflicts and corruption.

Found this on Archive.gov

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

Each state's electors meets in their state.

As long as Trump has more EC votes than anyone else, the House isn't going to push him out. Pence will make it clear he doesn't want them to.

Keep in mind that more people voted for Trump than voted nationally for republican house candidates. They're not about to risk alienating a very large swath of voters.

This whole thread is about the EC not giving him the majority of their votes.

It only takes 38 or 39 not to vote for him or switch to Clinton.

He ends up tied, or with fewer EC votes than her.

These morons are going to throw this country away and vote for Putin's puppet.

I fully expect state secession by the time this done and over with.

Which is just what Putin would like to see.

They're not even the two most likely options.

Obviously, the most likely outcome is that Trump still ends up with at least 270 votes, even if some electors bail on him.

But assuming that 37 or 38 or 39 of his electors bail on him so he only has 269 (or 268 or 267) votes, it doesn't mean that Clinton will end up gaining enough of those votes to go from 232 to 269, 270, or higher. And it's simply beyond reasonable expectation to think she would.

So the most likely scenario (after Trump still having 270 or more) is that Trump has somewhere between 233 and 269 EC votes and Clinton still has only 232 and Trump is still the candidate with a plurality in the EC. And he's still the guy the House picks to be president.

You're looking at this from a Democrat's perspective; one that says Trump is an embarrassment and a mistake and the people who put him in power won't be able to face themselves in the mirror.

You need to look at it from the perspective of being a Republican and that in little over a month, they'll enter Washington DC in control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House. Oh, and a vacancy on the Supreme Court. They're amassing the most conservative cabinet ever to undo decades of government liberalism.

That's called "winning."

And people here think that they're troubled by the need to save face and the only remedy for their tortured GOP souls is to give Hillary Clinton the White House?

Seriously?

You said, "one by one Rep's and trump voters are seeing the colossal mistake the country made in allowing trump to run."

Says who? Go take a peek over at Free Republic and count how many people over there are viewing Donald Trump as a colossal mistake. Be prepared to stay awhile to find even one.

Sorry, but there's some serious delusion on this thread.

That's like saying DU is representing of the entire DNC.

Clearly I don't go there and never said many or all. I said one by one, which I've seen.

For your delusional proclamation. This thread was just someone getting an idea of their chest.

and even then, I doubt if it would involve Hillary, it would probably involve the electors in the red states casting their vote for a different republican than Trump.

That's why the next 2 years, at a minimum, are going to suck so much.

That's a stage of grief. It's not going to happen.

And I wouldn't call it throwing spaghetti at the wall -- spaghetti sometimes sticks, while your idea is got no chance of sticking.

The Democratic electors throwing their support to some other Republican who many Democrats and Republicans would find a bit better than Trump would be a compromise.

In 1994, the Democrats lost their majority in the California state assembly. The Democratic speaker, Willie Brown, got his caucus to vote for a Republican to become speaker - not the Republican who the Republican leaders wanted. Then the Republicans got that assembly member recalled, and then Brown did the same tactic with another Republican. It would take that kind of tactic to get anywhere. A lot of dealing.

Remember, the electors are from a lot of different states -- they owe nothing to the electors in other states. Would Hillary be the one to direct all of her electors to support a Republican other than Trump? That's 232 electors. Do you think there are 38 repub electors that would do what Hillary Clinton wants done?

I think that it would take the intervention of some groups that look favorably upon the likes of McCain and Lindsay Graham. The "compassionate conservative" crowd. Perhaps even that independent candidate who did well in Utah. If Democrats maintained a sort of iron discipline and communications blackout and there was unanimity to support a candidate favorable to this group, I can imagine that a few Republicans might be peeled off. I don't imagine a scenario in which this got very far. Nor do I actually think the outcome would be favorable to the Democratic Party.

I don't see that happening, but it would be an easier sell than any term of Hillary. We are more willing to compromise than they are. Again, just tossing spaghetti.

I think they are far more likely to split their vote and send it to the house, a safe Republican forum, for the selection.

The outcome there would likely be Pence, or god help us Trump anyhow. There is a high wack-a-doo frequency amongst Republican house members. Then, the will of the electors is thwarted, the will of the majority is thwarted, and he can start serving under circumstances as dubious as his policies.

Hillary, under any scenario, is a long shot.

Corporate Dems would say, "Twelve years for Pence MAX, and that's our final offer!"

I'm curious.

This is exactly why they would never go for it.

There are other things to fight, no need wasting energy on something that isn't going to change.

These jackasses in the EC are so giddy with the prospect of the GOP "controlling" the government, they don't give a shit that Russia is going to be calling the shots.

I would go for Romney/Clinton as a big compromise for this progressive (that has NEVER voted for a Republican for POTUS), but even this would be considered too liberal for the current knuckle dragging GOP. They believe they won it all with a mandate...that is all that matters to the GOP. Country be damned

I think they'd be more comfortable about Kaine and his penis/balls

planning to run for a second term had she been elected.