of coarse you think that the popular vote should rule, now. but if ithe outcome was reversed you would be for the electoral vote. Right?

What is factual and logical is respecting the vote no matter what your stance is, those who do not are effectively un-democratic and yes should be viewed as enemies of the state. To ferment continued division by rioting and protesting violently against the vote IS un-American.

The silent vote has spoken and won, suck it up and respect it or go ahead and move to Bangladesh. My position would not change had the other side won

Yes. People who think that breaking the law as a form of protest, need to be told otherwise. However, we do not treat any OTHER law breakers as "enemies of the state," and to do so with these people, is therefore ANTI-Constitutional, and ANTI-rule of law.

You are overlooking something in the process. I'm not saying that it is okay to pass unconstitutional laws and regulations. I'm saying that Due Process is involved. That means that when unconstitutional laws are suggested, that that is protected free speech. After they are passed, the process to get rid of them is through challenge in the courts.

What we have way too much of right now, are people angrily demanding that laws be removed, or even debated, simply because they PERSONALLY think they are unconstitutional.

no, I would not

I question the electoral college when it doesnt seem to reflect the way the citizens voted

So I do not see a problem with the electoral votes, in a democratic vote most states 2 excepted are winner take all for the state, so whats wrong with the clinton supporters since the electors all voted according to the popular vote of their states?

What did I miss? :(

What did I miss? :(

What did I miss? :(

Here I will help you with that.

Each state has a specified number of electors based upon population same as a specified number of reps and senators.

In order to have a valid complaint about the electors one would need to show that some electors voted 'contrary' to the popular vote of their state.

The electors are held to that pledge, they cant vote willy nilly or base their vote on the pop votes of a different state.

So my question is which electors voted contrary to the popular votes of their state which is the only possible way anyone would have a valid complaint about the electors.






Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.



List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors

verified as of March 1, 2016

The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws.

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – State Law – Elections Code § 6906
COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1001.08(g)
FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – State Law – § 8-505
MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-304
NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714
NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108 .

Total Electoral Votes: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270
State Number of Electoral Votes
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 11
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Florida 29
Georgia 16
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 20
Indiana 11
Iowa 6
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 10
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 18
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38
Utah 6
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3








So I do not see a problem with the electoral votes, in a democratic vote most states 2 excepted are winner take all for the state, so whats wrong with the clinton supporters since the electors all voted according to the popular vote of their states?

Complaints about a system that levels the playing field for all 50 states.

some people are blaming the electoral college when al the electors voted in consonant with the popular vote of their states respectively.

the libs dont understand how the system works, they think the electors went against the pop vote and they did not.

That is the only way anyone could blame the electoral college.

None of what you said is based on factual knowledge. Your vague term "libs" clearly doesn't apply to anyone other than "people you don't like," because EVERYONE has complained about the Electoral College system at one time or another.

And no, most of the people who are complaining about the E.C. are NOT ignorant of how it works at all. What they are upset about is EXACTLY how it works, which I can only deduce that you do not, since you think it reflects the popular vote, when it clearly does not.

Here's the main thing ANYONE needs to know, in order to get a handle on the E.C.: the United States is a Republic. It is actually named well, because the government was designed, and remains, as a collection of STATES, not as a single NATION.

And that is ALSO why we end up with people winning elections, while losing the overall popular vote.

There are so far only TWO states which apportion their electors proportionately to the way people vote there. Forty-eight other states are winner-take-all.

That means that if candidate "A" wins state "X" by a 90% landslide, and loses to candidate "B" in state "Y" (a state with identical number of voters)by a slim margin, BOTH CANDIDATES WILL GET THE SAME NUMBER OF ELECTORAL VOTES, even though in total popular vote BETWEEN those two states, candidate "A" won as much as double or more popular votes.

Anyone who wants every citizens vote to count equally, will be correct in opposing the E.C. system.

some people are blaming the electoral college when al the electors voted in consonant with the popular vote of their states respectively.

the libs dont understand how the system works, they think the electors went against the pop vote and they did not.

That is the only way anyone could blame the electoral college.