I signed it. Trump is unfit to be president and the popular vote is against him. The will of the people is a matter for interpretation.
Popular vote is somewhat irrelevant - it's not the first time and won't be the last that the person winning the popular vote fails to secure sufficient votes in the Electoral College. It happened to George W as well in 2000 when Al Gore received 550,000 more votes than him (50.45m vs 51.00m) but failed via the Electoral College system. Furthermore, neither candidate won more than 48% of the vote, so it's not as though the majority expressed a preference for Hillary.
These protesters bring to mind the guy who killed his ex girlfriend, figuring---"If I can't have er, no one can".
10 states have an agreement to deliver all of their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, it's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I have another (TIC) idea . . . . . let's utilize BOTH the Electoral College Vote AND the Popular Vote in elections. Then, if the results are disparate, we can just choose whichever system best supports the wishes of the loudest and most destructive crybabies (who probably are too lazy to vote anyway!)!
What so many Trump supporters fail to understand is that world opinion about the USA ability to continue to support nuclear self restraint is changing for the worse. A super power is one thing, a rogue super power is another...
That I didn't know. Are any of those states going to change their voting from the way the state vote went? or were they all Democrat anyway?
I see now: The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.
"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] Political analyst Nate Silver has argued that the Compact is unlikely to pass nationwide.[4] As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia, whose 165 combined electoral votes represent 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force. All of them have been heavily Democratic states. Swing states will likely not join the Compact, as it would reduce their influence; Republican nominees won the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections while losing the popular vote." wiki- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact According to wiki Trump has secured 290 votes (60,265,858 Indv. votes) Hillary has secured 228 votes (60,839,922 Indiv. votes) Difference = 62 votes (574064 Indv. Votes) The NPVIC alone has the potential to allocates a total of 165 votes. Other states baring a couple also have the potential to be "unfaithful electors".
LOL Sort of reminds me of Brexit. My guess is, in a few decades, this whole 'voting' thing will probably be a quaint memory. That aside, I noticed a few of the States are talking of voting for succession. That's great news. Maybe, just maybe, we can return to a Republican Union of individual States whereby each State can act according to the will of the Citizens in said State. Of course, this would mean ending the Federal Reserve.
I actually think thats a good idea down the road and not 50 nations just divide up areas for mexicans/border issue, white nationalists, black nationalists and the west coast for multiculturalists. I think florida and california itself should be their own countries. There would definitely be issue over who gets what land though.
Britain has the opportunity to over turn the Brexit vote due to the need for a "hostile to Brexit" parliament to endorse the exit. The Electoral College in the USA has also an opportunity to do like wise with the 2016 election results.
We are, in essence, nation states. The question seems to be the degree of power we want our federal government to have over local communities.
No, we aren't, and we fought a very bloody civil war to prove that point. State's rights is an old Republican argument. But it's more than a little ironic that the Republican Party was born favoring federal authority over state's rights. My, what a difference a century makes.
Another irony here is that Republicans are relying on a vestiges of slavery to maintain political power. Were it not for those vestiges, the Electoral College, the allocation of senators, etc., Republicans wouldn't control anything.
If it had worked out in favor of the Democrats, they would care less about the Electoral College and would be celebrating rather than protesting in the streets. The issue here is their inability to accept the loss.
