With anti-Trump hopes increasingly pinned on the electoral college - and the number of anti-Trump GOP electors on the rise - a new bipartisan coalition has upped the ante with a national effort to lobby "conscientious electors" to do what's right. In full-page ads in major papers, the group has written an open letter to our "Esteemed Electors," citing the "unprecedented" danger posed by "the kind of president our Founding Fathers warned us about."
The attempts not to recognize the result of the election grow even as Ms Clinton mocked Donald Trump and claimed it would destroy the US Democracy if he decided to do that very thing were he to lose on election night.
This surreal and there will be tremendous blow back were Electors in states where Trump won decided to ignore the peoples vote,
Be very careful as to what you wish more. If the Electoral College used in such a manner today then the precedent set for the same in the future which will only taint the process further and drive an ever great wedge between the people that vote Democrat and Republican.
If Electors in the College can be convinced to "vote their conscience" and vote the opposite of what the people in their State desired then those electors will have unprecedented power in future elections which means THEY will become the target of future lobbying efforts.
I can understand the desire not to see trump as President but this is very dangerous.
The Dem Primary is what deserved this Big Fuss, screwing the Populace (not just the Dems) out of what we REALLY wanted.
Now, as an astute Poster recently pointed out, if we get Hillary we hit a Brick Wall at 60 mph instead of Trump's 90mph.
And yes, this is a VERY dangerous turn of events.
If being a Sociopath makes one unfit for office, why the sudden apprehension now, after the decades long Parade of Souless Tools.
Heck, You and I rarely agree on anything. I agree with what you said on this 100% though. Nicely written . Next thing I know my dogs will start getting along with my cats.
This whole election was a series of "Be careful what you wish for". Well except for Sanders supporters, they are the only ones who didn't get what they wished for at all.
Quite frankly it was a travesty as far as elections go. The worlds "one indispensible nation" just does not seem to have a grip on how to ran fair and verifiable elections, be it in the primraies or the elections themseleves. I remember hearing about how districts gerrymandered in the USA and alsways thought it odd but it really not obvious as to just how BAD and overtly corrupt the process was until I saw a site that listed the top Gerrmandered districts in the USA.
Allowing each state invdividually to set the standards and rules wherein those running the State can be overtly partisan in "working the system" is a recipe for disaster.
Should 37 electors vote against Trump, tying the results, the congress has to make the choice. Though this might be interesting to watch, I for one would not be breaking out the popcorn, but rather the jug of Jack.
If they chose Trump it would make them; in spite of their earlier rantings against him, complicit in every thing he does. Not necessarily a good thing for the Republicans as they would be unable to point the finger of fault entirely towards him.
If they chose Clinton their agenda would continue moving forward, but at a much slower pace and they could continue with their blame game while the Nation itself falls into some sort of revolt.
If they chose Pence; who seems to agree as head of the transition team, with Trumps choices of cabinet members and agency heads, they would also loose their finger of fault and be complicit.
I don't for see any of the above as Trump will waltz into the White House with the Trump business desk and Ivanka in an office just down the hall. The Republicans will milk it for all it's worth until it gets to be too much, at which time they will impeach him, throw him under the bus and degrade him for the never do well that he is while waving that nasty finger of fate and fault the entire time.
I think the people need to worry about what the role of the CIA is here .
They are a key element of the deep state. I do not think they leak information to the Washington Post out of concern over having fair elections.
"On Monday (Nov 21), a federal court overturned Wisconsin’s Republican-drawn legislative maps as an “unconstitutional gerrymander” that likely played a major factor in the party’s disproportionate electoral success."
Diversion. Change the mindset and conversation.
Russia does have an abundance of untapped oil and other monetary worthy resources though.
Just something else to keep in mind.
Should it go to the House, must the States then vote for one of the two candidates?, or can a new one be entered in nomination, say Paul Ryan? What's the law?
The Framers were quite intelligent about a great many things - chalk it up to experience.
Only 3 Presidential elections (1876, 2000, 2016) resulted in a mismatch between the popular vote and the Electoral College count.
1876: Tilden (D) and Hayes (R) made a backroom deal that gave the 20 electors needed by the Republican to win the EC vote.
2000: Bush (R) brought legal challenges to the FL recounts and ran out the clock.
Note that in both of those elections, the Republican won. Neither of those elections tested the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of the Electors.
This is a real opportunity to test the Electoral College. The Framers privately debated how the President would be elected in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. The Framers also publicly aregued the question in the press. The result of their efforts, the attempt to dignify the office, was they created a separate and distinct method for electing the 'Chief Magistrate' of the United States - the Electoral College.
They believed that the a smaller group of men would be better informed about of the candidates and would deliberate the character before accepting the results of the popular vote. They did not wish the office to be held by any person elected by a popular vote that was produced by undue influence, either from internal or external sources. Furthermore, they believed that these Electors could more easily determine if a candidate was of sufficient character and if they were qualified to hold the esteemed office.
Consider the EC as a check and balance to the popular vote. The Framers built many of these mechanisms into the government.
For the most part of our history, things worked well - the popular vote and the EC placed a qualified person into the office of President. Some might not have been great men, but they were not unqualified for the office.
I consider the Electoral College vote to be a normal part of the Presidential election. In fact, their votes are the only votes that elect the President. Their votes are protected by the same laws that protect all votes in that, they cannot be coerced, bribed, taxed, threatened, treated, or be required to disclose their secret ballot.
The Electors are free to deliberate each of the candidates and vote according to those deliberations. More importantly, they should deliberate the candidates and the popular votes - does the character of a candidate qualify the person to hold the office of 'Chief Magistrate' and was there any undue influence in the popular vote, particularly from a foreign country?
Would the Framers ever consider a person who is duplicitous?
No, they were honest men dedicated to a common cause.
There is consensus that a foreign power did place undue influence on the election, the EC doesn't have to consider if that influence changed the results, only that there was foreign influence. Common sense would dictate that the winner of the popular vote did benefit, there's nothing to gain by interfering to the benefit the losing candidate.
There is nothing extraordinary about the circumstances or the measures. It is how the system was designed to work, if the system isn't used as designed .....
Maybe there should be a warning label on the EC
WARNING: Failure to use this system as designed might result in injury.
Possible injuries include (but are not limited to), collapse of the economic system, war in foreign lands, denigration of civil rights, and even death (one Party rule).
If this happens those second amendment gun toting Trump voters, who are mad as hell at the "Establishment" (and their spokesperson, Hillary) will be even madder. Trump will work them into a frenzy; then - who knows? It would not be pretty.
Sure, they would be upset and throw a tantrum.
I think though as long as the full and legal process were followed, there isn't much else they could do, other than raise a stink.
Armed rebellion? Unlikely, every law enforcement agency in the United States swears to protect the people. If they joined the 'rebels' the President might use Federal forces (Washington used Federal forces to put down a mob rebellion in PA, Lincoln used Federal forces to protect the Union).
Civil war? Perhaps, but it would be short. I don't want to see tanks, missiles or drones killing other Americans who have a muskets. If they are crazy enough to try, then that is their prerogative and their fate is death.
An endless Twitter war? Probably, but I 'm not a subscriber and I only see them because the press prints them in articles.
More Trump TV? I can change the channel.
I understand and appreciate your comment, I figured someone would make it, glad it came from a friendly
The way the system was designed was changed, apart from changing the Constitution, only 10 years after the initial system proved undemocratic and designed to insure the rule of the elites apart from the will of the people.
This change is known as the Republican Revolution and was instigated by Thomas Jefferson after he lost to Adams in the old system in 1796. (Which also made him Vice President in the old system.) He and his supporters realized the elites would not change the constitution, so they did an end run around it, since they realized it didn't need to be changed- all they had to do was use the democratic process to change how the states selected their electors.
in the original system the legislatures of the states got together and picked the electors. The people had no say. This idea that the electoral college was designed to balance the popular vote is NONSENSE and ignores history. The electoral college was designed to insure the president was not elected by the people at all, there was no popular vote because there was no election.
But what Jefferson and his cohorts did was to organize and have those supporting democracy elected to the state legislatures who them passed laws that the electors in their state would no longer be selected by the legislatures in an undemocratic process but selected by a vote of the people.
These Jeffersonians were hated by the elites. They insulted them any way they could. The elites organized around Alexander Hamilton (the unlikely hero today of progessives.) The main term of insult they used for the Jeffersonians was to say they were like French Revolutionaries- ie "Republicans." In other words they hated them because they were for democracy and the people electing their leaders and thought calling them people who believed in a Republic was a terrible insult.
The Jeffersonians instead owned the name and thus the first Republican Party was formed. The Hamiltonians latched onto the name of all who'd supported a federal constitution and became the Federalist Party. Don't conflate the original "Federalists" with this Hamiltonian party; for instance one of the main authors of the "Federalist Papers" and the man considered the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, was one of the first Republicans.
The Republicans swept enough states in the 1798 elections to change the system so that from then on we had popular elections to select the electoral college. This is how Jefferson became president in 1800 and Adams retired from public office. Madison and Monroe and Quincy Adams (who had become a Republican by then) were all in the original Republican Party. The Federalists basically disintegrated after Monroe was elected in 1816 and for a period there was only one party.
Of course that party split after the 1824 election into Jacksonians, the Democrats, and those opposed to Jackson, the Whigs. But for all the faults of Jackson (and there were many) the main thing that swept him into office was extending the Republican Revolution of 1800 into a Democratic Revolution. Before him only white men of property could vote. After him all while men could vote, what the elites (who had become Jeffersonian Republicans eventually but still were elitists) called the 'rabble.'
It simply disgusts me to see people, who because they dislike what the 'rabble' of today did in enough states for Trump to win, to take the Hamiltonian Federalists and their disdain for elections as the solution. These people are even going further than the Whigs, who never conceived of overthrowing the Jeffersonian Republican Revolution and by 1840 didn't even conceive of overthrowing the Jacksonian Revolution of extending the franchise. Instead they tried to present their elite candidate as being as Jacksonian as Jackson, born in a log cabin and a rough and ready frontier general too- Tippecanoe.
What we need to do now is take the Jeffersonian Republican to the next level, not undo it. Instead of undoing it, we need to use the same process as the Jeffersonians did to have state electors elected by the national popular vote. A number of states have done that and it is doable. But until then the electors need to be faithful to the people in their states who voted for them.
Please stop with the idolization of Hamilton. It makes sense that the unDemocratic Party elites would do that. They are Neo-Liberal elitists anyway. But it is sad that everyday people who think they believe in democracy would be joining in this.
Call me names if that's how you get your cheap thrills, but the above reinforces what I posted.
There is no such thing as the national vote
You might want to bone up on history - all of the Framers were wealthy men (elites).
Wasn't Lincoln the first Republican? That would put it around 1860, right? Didn't the Republican Party rise from the ashes of the Whig Party?
It's funny how both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party of today claim Jefferson as one of their own
I didn't mention Hamilton, but since you brought it up
So Hamilton gets shot and killed for supporting Jefferson, not much hate there!
Burr, however, was not a well liked man.
What's sad is that we've allowed political Parties to hijack the Constitution. It's sad that people think the mechanism used to elect the President ever since the inception of the Republic is in some way not democratic. The Framers didn't trust the people and they didn't trust the politicians to elect the President, the EC was a good compromise, not perfect, but good.