Another Take on the Electoral Vote

Barleywine

I did a five-card line asking the question: "What will next Monday's Electoral College vote mean for Donald Trump's provisional victory?" using the Gilded Reverie.

Mice + Fox + Fish + Clover + Rider

I read the first two cards as showing on-going attempts to "unravel" (Mice) the original outcome by instilling "faithlessness" (Fox) in a sufficient number of Republican electors to turn the tide. The conventional idea of a "stressful job" (personally, I don't see Fox as "job") could reflect the uncomfortable position of the electors.

One meaning of Fox + Fish is "financial fraud," making me wonder whether, in addition to the public harassment presently being visited on electors, there might not be some bribery attempts.

Fish + Clover gives the idea that the current economic surge may be playing in Trump's favor in the minds of the electors. I'm convinced his "acting presidential" in this area before he has the clear mandate to do so is aimed at implanting this notion.

Clover + Rider is "good news," plain and simple. This seems to align with the general view that the effort to swing the prize away from Trump is a long-shot. Since Clover is "small luck" compared to the Sun's "big luck," I believe Trump will lose some ground but not enough to make a difference.

I was careful to construct the question so it wouldn't be open-ended (as in "What will happen?"). Thoughts? (Please leave your personal biases behind; I'm not interested in debating politics, only what's "in the cards.")

ETA: I just noticed that this thread is in the wrong sub-form; I've asked Lee to move it.
 

zannamarie

I looked at your question and assumed you meant the vote itself (when it was done in Congress). It wasn't until I read your interpts that I realized you meant the actual voting, so my interps may seem off.

There was actually a bipartisan review of the election/electoral college. It was discovered that upwards of 50 electors were not actually eligible to serve as presidental electors. Some didn't live in the districts they were supposed to represent while others held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders. (This report didn't come out until just before the Congressional Ratificiation of the vote.) So, the Mice+Fox could represent those votes.

The Fox-Fish and Fix-Clover in the middle could represent the members of Congress who stand to gain something by his victory, so they would have ignored the ineligible votes.

I do see the Clover+Rider as Trump's success.
 

Barleywine

I looked at your question and assumed you meant the vote itself (when it was done in Congress). It wasn't until I read your interpts that I realized you meant the actual voting, so my interps may seem off.

There was actually a bipartisan review of the election/electoral college. It was discovered that upwards of 50 electors were not actually eligible to serve as presidental electors. Some didn't live in the districts they were supposed to represent while others held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders. (This report didn't come out until just before the Congressional Ratificiation of the vote.) So, the Mice+Fox could represent those votes.

The Fox-Fish and Fix-Clover in the middle could represent the members of Congress who stand to gain something by his victory, so they would have ignored the ineligible votes.

I do see the Clover+Rider as Trump's success.

Do you know what the break-down was between ineligible Republican and Democratic electors? It may not have changed things as much as might be assumed. Although even if it brought Trump's number below 270, it wouldn't have raised Clinton's above that number, so the House of Representatives still would have had the ball in their court. I think part of the Democratic strategy was to have the Electoral College vote invalidated and then work on some of the waffling Republican Congressmen who dislike Trump to swing them to their side during the final decision. All of it was a pretty long shot, in my opinion.
 

zannamarie

Do you know what the break-down was between ineligible Republican and Democratic electors? It may not have changed things as much as might be assumed. Although even if it brought Trump's number below 270, it wouldn't have raised Clinton's above that number, so the House of Representatives still would have had the ball in their court. I think part of the Democratic strategy was to have the Electoral College vote invalidated and then work on some of the waffling Republican Congressmen who dislike Trump to swing them to their side during the final decision. All of it was a pretty long shot, in my opinion.
It was at least 50 Republican voters, so it would have pulled the numbers below 270 for Trump and put the vote into the House of Representatives. It sticks in my mind because at least 12 of them were from my state and one was our state attorney general (who should definitely understand state law!)
 

Barleywine

It was at least 50 Republican voters, so it would have pulled the numbers below 270 for Trump and put the vote into the House of Representatives. It sticks in my mind because at least 12 of them were from my state and one was our state attorney general (who should definitely understand state law!)

The Electoral College has been such a rubber-stamp for so long that nobody has been paying much attention to it. I doubt the requisite number of States can be lined up to push a Constitutional Amendment through since it would strip the smaller States of any voice they have in the election process, so we will probably see some kind of administrative and enforcement tightening.