4 ms·

Democrats prayed for such an occurrence in 2016 to no avail. Why do you believe the results will be different this time?

RandallBrown 6y ago
Georgia and Pennsylvania don't have laws preventing faithless electors from voting against their state's winning candidate. It's looking like the lead will be big enough that even in the (very) small chance things go wrong it won't matter.
- ibejoeb 6y ago
  >small chance things go wrong for some definition of wrong
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  I severely doubt that someone would non-anonymously choose to be the single person that gave away the election to their declared opponent, weeks after being a loyal partisan.
  - anonymousab 6y ago
    If there's one thing I don't doubt, it's people's dedication to a president they believe is the only person fighting the 'deep state' and other things along those lines. I can easily see it spun (or justified) as "defending democracy" rather than upending it.
    - otterley 6y ago
      Then why didn't it happen with faithless electors in 2016?
      - tu12 6y ago
        There were 10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
        otterley 6y ago
        Importantly, though: "... only two... defected from the winner."
perennate 6y ago
Clinton conceded the election to Trump the day after the election. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-concedes-election-donald-trump-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clin...
- stu2b50 6y ago
  That doesn't mean anything legally either. It's not like you give up your electors when you concede. It's just part of losing gracefully. Technically the only thing that matters is what the electors decide to do.
  - otterley 6y ago
    Well... there is such a thing in law as estoppel. It's primarily used in a civil context; I'm not sure a situation has ever come up for it to be tested in election law.

RandallBrown 6y ago

Georgia and Pennsylvania don't have laws preventing faithless electors from voting against their state's winning candidate. It's looking like the lead will be big enough that even in the (very) small chance things go wrong it won't matter.

ibejoeb 6y ago
>small chance things go wrong for some definition of wrong
srtjstjsj 6y ago
I severely doubt that someone would non-anonymously choose to be the single person that gave away the election to their declared opponent, weeks after being a loyal partisan.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  If there's one thing I don't doubt, it's people's dedication to a president they believe is the only person fighting the 'deep state' and other things along those lines. I can easily see it spun (or justified) as "defending democracy" rather than upending it.
  - otterley 6y ago
    Then why didn't it happen with faithless electors in 2016?
    - tu12 6y ago
      There were 10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
      - otterley 6y ago
        Importantly, though: "... only two... defected from the winner."

perennate 6y ago

Clinton conceded the election to Trump the day after the election. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-concedes-election-donald-trump-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clin...

stu2b50 6y ago
That doesn't mean anything legally either. It's not like you give up your electors when you concede. It's just part of losing gracefully. Technically the only thing that matters is what the electors decide to do.
- otterley 6y ago
  Well... there is such a thing in law as estoppel. It's primarily used in a civil context; I'm not sure a situation has ever come up for it to be tested in election law.