The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. The Constitutional framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the president.” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice.

Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment,  not cogs turning a wheel.

Essentially they can ignore the election and cast their vote for any candidate.

Say the College representatives from Florida and Pennsylvania decide to cast their vote for Clinton. Then Mr Trump is no longer President Elect.

It's happened before. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland.

Should a senario play out that hands Clinton the election, she by far won the popular vote, the protests seen around America will explode into potential violence.

Raven wrote on Nov 25^th, 2016 at 11:11pm:

Essentially they can ignore the election and cast their vote for any candidate.

I understood that only applied to about 22 states. The others are required by law to follow the voters directions

It's logical that there needs to be reps. handling specific areas who can be a voice in parliament.

We have "seats", MP's. Pretty much the same thing as the electoral college.

I agree with Trump that if it was about total votes, then he would have campaigned differently.

No sour grapes. The system and the rules have been in place for a long long time.

The feminist rival failed where a drover's dog could win.

Amadd wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 1:01am:

I agree with Trump that if it was about total votes, then he would have campaigned differently.

He would have had no choice but to campaign differently, and so would Clinton. But in my opinion, Clinton actually did campaign that way, thinking she'd also reach 270 as well, on the back of high total vote which she knew she was going to receive in the so-called "popular" vote

As far as the Electoral College goes, there was never meant to be factions or political parties in the process. The two major parties have taken over the E/Colleges throughout the States and essentially corrupted the system. Perhaps the Colleges should go back to being impartial and independent, as much as they can be vetted that way, given all the special interests

I think all the griping by the losers that's taking place is because they see their worldwide humanist socialist politics as the only politics that should exist and they've become so accustomed to it's cosy comfortable arrangements that they think there just can't be any other politics. They're in for a shock if ever the global economy collapses

So, it's probably corruption of the processes, lack of knowledge on the part of voters these days, and party politics, that's causing the discontent

Having said all this, I wish Australia had a better system than what we've got, that would finally eliminate the useless National Party from the political scene

To keep Americans duped that they are living in a "democracy"

Marla wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 4:41am:

To keep Americans duped that they are living in a "democracy"

exactly.. we think our voice is being heard... or something like that ::)..

we are told who wins. ::) ::).. ..

I believe they run tatts lotto in a more convincing manner.

Marla wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 4:41am:

To keep Americans duped that they are living in a "democracy"

It is a democracy. It might be flawed, but is still democratic. Free and open elections are the proof thereof - not the election of someone you (rightly) despise.

Bias_2012 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 2:11am:

I think all the griping by the losers that's taking place is because they see their worldwide humanist socialist politics as the only politics that should exist and they've become so accustomed to it's cosy comfortable arrangements that they think there just can't be any other politics. They're in for a shock if ever the global economy collapses

Yep. It makes a mockery of their slogans of 'diversity' and 'tolerance'.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

It is a democracy. It might be flawed, but is still democratic. Free and open elections are the proof thereof - not the election of someone you (rightly) despise.

Oh, that is so damn f--ing funny. You keep on believing in that, fool.

Marla wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 11:01am: It is a democracy. It might be flawed, but is still democratic. Free and open elections are the proof thereof - not the election of someone you (rightly) despise. Oh, that is so dam you-king funny. You keep on believing in that, fool.

If your country is such as basket case then why were you all so angry about change (Trump)?

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:02pm:

Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 11:01am: It is a democracy. It might be flawed, but is still democratic. Free and open elections are the proof thereof - not the election of someone you (rightly) despise. Oh, that is so dam you-king funny. You keep on believing in that, fool. If your country is such as basket case then why were you all so angry about change (Trump)?

"change"?      ;D

Trump is change?

Now you're just being insulting.

Marla wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:03pm:

Trump is change? Now you're just being insulting.

He's certainly not in the same mould as the succession of other liars you have had.

Yeah, he pretty much is.

Marla wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:07pm:

Yeah, he pretty much is.

Why would you want to stay with the people who haven't fixed America? The same people who spent 3 trillion of your money on two silly wars that could have repaired your country twice over?

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:05pm:

Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:03pm: Trump is change? Now you're just being insulting. He's certainly not in the same mould as the succession of other liars you have had.

He's exactly the same.

Jesus, what was the very first thing he did when he became President Elect?  He reneged of every single one of his election campaign promises.

Trump doesn't represent change.

Same dog, different leg action.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:05pm: Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:03pm: Trump is change? Now you're just being insulting. He's certainly not in the same mould as the succession of other liars you have had. He's exactly the same. Jesus, what was the very first thing he did when he became President Elect?  He reneged of every single one of his election campaign promises. Trump doesn't represent change. Same dog, different leg action.

He hasn't been inaugurated yet you retard. How could he have implemented anything? ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 4:41am: To keep Americans duped that they are living in a "democracy" It is a democracy. It might be flawed, but is still democratic. Free and open elections are the proof thereof - not the election of someone you (rightly) despise.

It's a Constitutional Republic longy .... with an electoral system to elect representatives by democratic means, no more, no less

"democratic means" doesn't make the Republic a Democracy

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:05pm: Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:03pm: Trump is change? Now you're just being insulting. He's certainly not in the same mould as the succession of other liars you have had. He's exactly the same. Jesus, what was the very first thing he did when he became President Elect?  He reneged of every single one of his election campaign promises. Trump doesn't represent change. Same dog, different leg action. He hasn't been inaugurated yet you retard. How could he have implemented anything? ::)

He has already said he is NOT going to do the things he promised.

No need to wait, as he has already backed away from every single promise he made.

The American people have been duped.

With Trump, nothing changes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:19pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:05pm: Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:03pm: Trump is change? Now you're just being insulting. He's certainly not in the same mould as the succession of other liars you have had. He's exactly the same. Jesus, what was the very first thing he did when he became President Elect?  He reneged of every single one of his election campaign promises. Trump doesn't represent change. Same dog, different leg action. He hasn't been inaugurated yet you retard. How could he have implemented anything? ::) He has already said he is NOT going to do the things he promised. No need to wait, as he has already backed away from every single promise he made. The American people have been duped. With Trump, nothing changes.

You won the bet fair and square, Greggery. Bogie and Homo should honour their word and leave the board for good.

What is the point of an election?

To change idiots.

The US electoral college, among other things, ensures that the states with a smaller population have an equal voice in the government and the appointment of the president.  The early US government realised that if they wanted to expand the nation and establish new states they would have to ensure that the new states had an equal say in the national government. No territory would join the US if it thought that it would be overruled and decisions made by the large, populous states.

We had a similar situation in Australia prior to federation, however we went about resolving it in a different way.   

This is why the 'popular vote' does not matter in this case. A prospective president must appeal to a broad section of the population in every state, not just a majority in a few key places.  In this latest election we see that the system has worked exactly as intended. 

The Democrats would have been perfectly happy to win the electoral college. What they are really pissed off about, is all three levels of legislation are in Republican hands.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:37pm:

What is the point of an election? To change idiots.

      
True enough, if elections actually changed anything it would be made illegal

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:16pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:05pm: Marla wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 12:03pm: Trump is change? Now you're just being insulting. He's certainly not in the same mould as the succession of other liars you have had. He's exactly the same. Jesus, what was the very first thing he did when he became President Elect?  He reneged of every single one of his election campaign promises. Trump doesn't represent change. Same dog, different leg action. He hasn't been inaugurated yet you retard. How could he have implemented anything? ::)

peccas so smart he can see into the future. he even knew who would be elected president.  ;)