Illuminati-R-Us

I would never wish ill on anyone...

But if January 20th comes and it's not him, it would not break my heart.

There is still this.

I also saw something about the idea of Faithless Electors. I guess there is still hope, however slight.

The faithless electors seems to be no hope from what I could see. Unless the house of Rep. would want someone else, as they would end up choosing?

I don't think it would go to the house if the electors choose someone else. I think it only goes to the house if they don't choose.

There would have to be at least 37 of them. It doesn't seem very likely.

So what's happening in this space?

Мастер wrote:There would have to be at least 37 of them. It doesn't seem very likely.

I agree, it is not very likely at all. But I think it would be a great opportunity to see the founding fathers in action, implementing the Electoral College to insulate the selection of the president from the stupidity of the people. I think this is exactly what they had in mind.

ETA: If she gets the remaining undecided votes, there would need to be 22 faithless electors.

What is the source on the electoral vote count? My source shows 306-232, but this might be the owner's forecast rather than any kind of "official" result.

"22 faithless electors" will be the name of my thrash metal band.

Any bets that Buttercup "voted" for Trump to keep "them" out?

Мастер wrote:What is the source on the electoral vote count? My source shows 306-232, but this might be the owner's forecast rather than any kind of "official" result.

That will probably be right but 2 states haven't certified yet. Michigan (16) is leaning toward Trump and New Hampshire (4) is leaning toward Hillary but they are still officially "to close to call". If Michigan were to flip and go her way, which is still possible, then it's 290-248.

Google has been following this in real time. You can see what I'm seeing here: https://www.google.com/#q=current+electoral+vote+count

Lance wrote:

Мастер wrote:What is the source on the electoral vote count? My source shows 306-232, but this might be the owner's forecast rather than any kind of "official" result.

That will probably be right but 2 states haven't certified yet. Michigan (16) is leaning toward Trump and New Hampshire (4) is leaning toward Hillary but they are still officially "to close to call". If Michigan were to flip and go her way, which is still possible, then it's 290-248.

Google has been following this in real time. You can see what I'm seeing here: https://www.google.com/#q=current+electoral+vote+count

That's a Google search, and the first link shows 306-232, what I've been seeing

But if the difference is +16 (Michigan) and -4 (New Hampshire) for Trump, then that would mean once certified, a need for 22 faithless electors becomes a need for 34 faithless electors. My count was 37. There must have been one other state (Maine?) involved here.

Мастер wrote:That's a Google search, and the first link shows 306-232, what I've been seeing

Okay, you're not seeing what I'm seeing. For me, there is a real-time tracker before you see any of the links. Let me see if I can capture some of it, but it's pretty big.

Okay, here you go.

The Buchan Observer's take.

And the Stornoway Gazette's. I'm unclear as to our own Lianachan's Stornoway connection but I'm sure if eligible he'd step up. I think it might be his Missus who's from there so it might have to be one of his laddies who kicks Trump in the chacks.

Lance wrote:Okay, here you go.

I see.

Wasn't thinking correctly before, the four for New Hampshire likely to turn blue should not make a difference in the number of faithless electors needed.

But, I think it is 21 based on the 290 count, not 22. This increases to 37 if Michigan turns red and New Hampshire turns blue.

Мастер wrote:

Lance wrote:Okay, here you go.

I see.

Wasn't thinking correctly before, the four for New Hampshire likely to turn blue should not make a difference in the number of faithless electors needed.

But, I think it is 21 based on the 290 count, not 22. This increases to 37 if Michigan turns red and New Hampshire turns blue.

Wouldn't 21 produce the 269/269 tie scenario?

Lance wrote:Wouldn't 21 produce the 269/269 tie scenario?

If the FP fails to win Michigan or New Hampshire, 21 would get them both below the magic 270.

In your scenario, the faithless electors are voting for the PWC, not some third person, and giving her a victory? Yes, you need one more for that.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some FP electors were faithless, but more than twenty - that's an awful lot. (Pun intended?)

Мастер wrote:that's an awful lot

Oh, that's good, that's very good.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:The office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

As unlikely as it is, it seems this is exactly one of the scenarios they had in mind when forming the Electoral College in the first place. So I don't know, but it seems like it is their responsibility to reject his election.

Lance wrote:

Мастер wrote:that's an awful lot

Oh, that's good, that's very good.

It happened accidentally, but I did notice it before hitting the "post" button

Lance wrote:

Alexander Hamilton wrote:The office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

As unlikely as it is, it seems this is exactly one of the scenarios they had in mind when forming the Electoral College in the first place. So I don't know, but it seems like it is their responsibility to reject his election.

The whole notion of "pre-pledged" electors does not appear to have been anticipated, although one rather wonders why not - perhaps a bit of naïveté. They are selected for exactly one purpose. When hiring someone for just about any job, one normally asks what they plan to do in that job, no?

So, there seems to be some sort of movement to have California secede from Mexico now?

How popular is Pence? If he is generally well-liked, that might be bit of a threat to the next president. I don't imagine it will be long before the FP offers a nice pretext for removal from office.

Depending on how the FP's fraud trial goes in December, apparently he could be facing impeachment on Inauguration Day. That might be fun.

Lance wrote:Depending on how the FP's fraud trial goes in December, apparently he could be facing impeachment on Inauguration Day. That might be fun.

Hmm. I wonder whether they can pre-impeach him.

Мастер wrote:

Lance wrote:Depending on how the FP's fraud trial goes in December, apparently he could be facing impeachment on Inauguration Day. That might be fun.

Hmm. I wonder whether they can pre-impeach him.

I am living in a Civics lesson.

You people have too much drama. Things are much simpler here.