Even apart from the point Greg gave out: his actions are not required to be pre-approved by you), what on earth was the point of complaining? We can’t do anything about it can we? Nothing we can do would matter because you don’t care about nuclear launch codes being in Trump’s hands. And you don’t WANT people to try to change your opinion on that.

But if you don’t care to have that opinion changed, what about those who ARE worried about those launch codes in Trumps tiny mitts? They don’t care either to have that opinion changed, any more than you do.

But if you DO care to discuss and are open to having your opinion changed, how is that supposed to happen without someone saying they’re worried? And how are their opinions supposed to be changed if they’re not allowed to let anyone know what their worry is?

It’s not as if you actually tried to come up with any counterargument for how it’s not worrying, you just let everyone know what you think on the subject.

Which is 100% what you called “a stupid post” when Greg did it.

Sorry, Jess, I should have checked with you first to see what your specific fears are.

Doest matter though, you can substitute the nuclear launch with any other bone headed thing Trump might do. Then re-read the post and there is point being made here!

Condé Nast rather than “Conde Naste.”

Granted that they may indeed have a strictly legal right to ignore the popular vote in their state

So when you claimed:

At the present time, the conventional view is that they don’t have that authority

You were… gasp!… incorrect!?!??!?!

Granted that they may indeed have a strictly legal right to ignore the popular vote in their state (the “could” aspect of the matter) , I think this misses a larger and much more important point–the “should” or “ought” aspect of it.

Can you think of a more direct and effective way to undermine what remains of public respect in the political order? I can’t.

If the E.C. set aside the popular votes under which they were chosen, the public at large (and the voters among them
, especially) are going to ask: why the bother with popular votes at all? They’d be right to wonder. It would be much cheaper, faster and easier to just consult the editorial board of The New Yorker or its parent company, Conde Naste or some association of electors drawn from alumni of the private colleges and universities which make up the Ivy League.

The answer, we now know, is that the elites would lose the cover, the democratic facade, which the present system affords them.

Currently, they enjoy a semi-respectable pseudo-democratic order which leaves them free to either ratify the popular vote–as it nearly always conforms to their preferences–or to set it aside in those extremely rare cases where it doesn’t conform, as some are urging be done here.

Worse than a system which is undemocratic yet still regular and openly understood in its operations, however unfair, yet still adheres to established practice and precedent–worse than that is a completely arbitrary and unpredictable system which is incoherent from the ordinary person’s point of view –except as a scheme to perpetuate selfish rule by an undeserving elite.

As you watch, even the pretense of a semi-democratic system is collapsing as self-styled ‘liberals’ seek any means to thwart an established system’s regular operation just because they are particularly dissatisfied with the popular vote on this occasion.

And this suits just fine anti-democrats among the elite whose objective is to bring democratic practice into such disrepute that the public can at last be persuaded that it is a worthless thing and ought to be abandoned completely.

I agree with RickA in his comment at #6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Electors see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Electoral_College_under_the_Twelfth_Amendment which amended Article 2 also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector – to date thee have been 157 instances of faithlessness in presidential elections,

RE : “The electors are chosen by the ballots cast in their respective states , not the popular vote nationally–which can differ”

‘So “popular vote nationally” cannot be the one I meant, can it?’

Yes, it could logically

No, logically it could not. Maybe you mean “linguistically”. Logically, a meaning which cannot apply in the situation cannot be the one referred to. See the “scrapped” homonym of “having a fight”.

So the answer is then, ‘No, the EC has _not_ “Ignore(d) the vote (five times) and decide(d) who to go for as president”

No, you got some wrong. For a start, they decided not to allow a recount, despite it being within the rules to allow such a thing. And you missed a few earlier ones.

Instead, they’ve voted (barring rare exceptions in the case of only a few electors) according to the state’s ballot result–wherever a winner can be determined–that is, where no tie was declared.

Yeah, not liable to be right, is it. If out of the entire country it only happened when there was an identical number of people, it would never happen. And even you admit that hasn’t been the case.

We don’t know whether they do

Yes you do. The constitution and the legal system set up the EC to do this. BY DEFINITION they can do it.

No, it isn’t–as explained above.

Yes it is, as explained above.

As things now stand, the vast majority of the nation’s voters expect–for good cause– the EC electors to cast their ballots in accordance with each elector’s state results.

Yes, never even implied otherwise, it’s all about what they COULD do, and noting that they’ve overturned the vote before.

It’s very unlikely (five times in 200+ years), but it happens. Never said it will or must happen this time, just that it can.

“They do not have a record of having defied those results in five presidential elections”

Deciding not to allow a recount in Florida for Gore is a record of them doing just that: a difference that would have reversed the election result.

You WERE alive then, weren’t you?

Oh, by the way, our conversation is over, don’t bother making another post anywhere on scienceblogs. Your posting actions are done. Finito. Ended. OVER. Live with it.