Can The Electoral College Stop Obama From Being President.

Been a long time since school, so I don't remember these things that clearly. I did hear them talking on election night about how the EC members could go against what the popular vote said. But in terms of the House electing the President and the Senate electing the Vice President, I thought that only happened in a tie in the EC votes. Obama's President. Folks can argue about the election results and whatnot. It's all good. Some still claim Bush stole 2000. It it what it is. But it doesn't change the reality. I doubt there will be any issue.

I think the right is wishing for some kind of miracle. Face it right wing Obama won fair and square and did not cheat, like many in your party did by making up rules as they went along to restrict voting or make some rules so Ron Paul had no shot at making Romney's chances harder. There is not anything you guys can do about it. Frankly, I think you guys got what you deserve by not electing the best Candidate. You guys could of chose Buddy Roamer, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty. Yet you guys went with a guy that changes his ideology like most people change their T-shirts everyday. By the way if you guys wanted a real conservative, from what I have been hearing, Jon Huntsman was the most conservative in the bunch just by what he passed when he was Governor and by his voting record. That is the problem when you hate facts, you end up making the wrong choices. I said a while back not even money was going to win that election for Romney.

Well, more slanted news-- Here's how it works. Of election day, each state chooses a set of electors, the number is equal to the number of representatives that the state has, plus the 2 Senator-- D.C. gets 3 electoral votes. On December 17, all these electors meet in their states, and MUST vote-- BUT-- in 24 states, they are NOT required to vote according to the popular vote, as those states have not passed laws that require them to comply with the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska, have laws that allow their electoral votes to be split. Once the votes are signed and sealed, they are delivered by secure means (don't know what kind) to the Congress, where they are then opened and counted on the 26th of December. At that point we have a president. In all states, laws are in place that allow a voter who doesn't vote along party lines (in the states that require this) or a voter that doesn't show, to be immediately replaced by a reserve voter. No one knows who the electors are, and they can't hold any public office if they are chosen to be electors. The electors are chosen from the party of the candidate that won the popular vote. So Theoretically, in those 24 states in question, and Maine and Nebraska, the electors can vote as they choose. of the 24 states, however, none are "swing states". "faithless voters" have happened in the past, and 29 states have laws in place to prevent electors from voting against the popular vote, or the party they are affiliated with. I didn't add up the numbers, but the list of states where electors can vote as they choose is on the electoral college website. And I doubt it's enough. In the event of a tie, the house chooses the President, the Senate chooses the Vice President. The odds of a bunch of democratic electors voting against the O man are less than zero, unfortunately... and I believe Romney won most or all of the states where it would be possible anyway, and the electors in the other states are prohibited by state law from voting against the popular vote. The only way I can see it making a difference is IF: and I haven't done the math-- you have a close election, and the electors in choice states choose to vote AS THEIR DISTRICT voted, making the electoral votes proportional, as in Maine and Nebraska. But-- the vote would ave to be very close, the candidate in question would have to have some of the mandatory party vote states on his card, and the choice states would have to allow the vote to be split-- and I haven't dug into enough state law to see if any of those states directly prohibit splitting the electoral vote. i know they don't MANDATE it, as Maine and Nebraska do, but I don't know if they prohibit it, and that's an important legal distinction.

come to think of it, this is crazy. it may be possible, but highly probably. the american system of election has been institutionalized to pave the way for a smooth transition of power. in this case, obama is reelected by the populace. the electoral college has to reflect the will of the populace by showing up and representing the voice of the american people who voted obama for another term.

I don't know if that would work but the majority of the people voted for Obama and I think that it should stand. If not, voting makes no sense if it can be manipulated to one party's preference. I think we should rethink who can vote, though. There should be a basic knowledge test near the voting booth to test knowledge of candidates and issues. Failure means you can't vote because you don't know enough to make an intelligent choice.

So you want to ignore the votes of the people of the United States of America? Doesn't that go against EVERYTHING the republican party, and specifically the Tea Party stands for? Now lets see if all of the right wingers get mad at YOU when you say Bush did it!!!

I don't think you have really thought this through fatcat. if states that supported romney did not turn up to vote, then why should not the same thing happen next time, with another winner. its really a precedent that you should be encouraging. it would destabilise your electoral system very quickly, and quite likely if it was necessary to have another election obama would win better, as it would just annoy people.