Social Question

josie's avatar

Does it surprise you that, after all the fuss, most of the faithless electors were Democrats who did not want to vote for Hillary Clinton?

Asked by josie (30934points) December 19th, 2016

It just seems like there was this expectation that any respectable faithless elector would vote for Clinton.
But instead, they went elsewhere.
What does this mean?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

9 Answers

Cruiser's avatar

It means that it is not just Conservatives who are disgusted with the Clintons.

ragingloli's avatar

It means that conservatives are good little goose-steppers that will follow their führer unquestioningly.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m pretty pissed about it. Im guessing they felt it was a protest vote that won’t harm the outcome so why not. I could go along with that if I thought Hillary was really that bad, but I don’t. I think she would have been a great president. Plus, I think a lot of democrats are going off the deep end to the left, and I think that’s a huge mistake.

Edit: to answer your question, yes, I’m surprised.

cinnamonk's avatar

It means we’re all fucked.

Pandora's avatar

Nope. I think they didn’t want the heat for voting for Clinton in states that didn’t originally want Clinton or Trump so they chose they figure by voting for someone other than the two, they would catch less flack from the citizens of their state. I look at it this way. Their job is suppose to make sure that an unfit individual doesn’t become our Presidents and if they side stepped it, then they did what they were suppose to do. Trump is unfit. I believe it would’ve been fitting for none of them to vote and have another election cycle. At the very least we need to be done with electors and candidates win by popular vote. Then and only then will any future winner actually be by the people.

SavoirFaire's avatar

No. Almost the entire push for an Electoral College solution to the Trump problem came from the Democratic side, and every article about it emphasized how little traction they were getting. Furthermore, you seem to have missed that the faithless elector option was never about putting Clinton in office. The elector who was behind most of it, Michael Baca, was a Democratic elector who announced from the beginning that (a) he would not be voting for Clinton, and (b) that the electors ought to settle on a suitable Republican alternative to Trump. So there was never an “expectation that any respectable faithless elector would vote for Clinton.” Quite the opposite, in fact.

rojo's avatar

I think you mean Hamilton electors, those who would actually do a service to the nation and not a party. But be that as it may, since both lapdog factions of the Party of the Elites would not even consider going against their masters I think that this was but a giant pissing in the wind, so to speak.

Jaxk's avatar

When in trouble or in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout
Fire a cannon, shoot a gun
Send the signal, Well Done

It was a feckless attempt to delegitimize the election. Democrats are in full panic mode and everyone is running in different directions.

rojo's avatar

The election is already illegitimate in the minds of the majority @Jaxk Lipstick ain’t gonna make this pig any less so.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther