President Trump Isn't A Done Deal..Electors Should Vote For Clinton On Dec. 19

[red dog 1]

Last edited Sat Nov 19, 2016, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Huffington Post
November 17, 2016
By Ani DiFranco


"Talk to any constitutional lawyer and they will explain to you how the Electoral College was put in place as a safeguard against the dangers of a purely representative democracy.
The Founding Fathers cautioned against endowing absolute power of election to a population which can be swayed by a charismatic figure with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" and maintained that a buffering body is necessary to safeguard against the hazard of any elected leader who may threaten the very state and principles of America.
If there ever was a moment in American history where it is imperative that the Electoral College fulfill it's duty of oversight, this is it.

Donald Trump is a criminal and a sociopath who fans the flames of racism and xenophobia with hateful rhetoric and divisive speech.
He attacks his critics, admits no faults, and is willing to forgo any process or protocol in the pursuit of unlimited power.
He has a vision of women as sexual objects and reproductive slaves and he plans to ;literally and figuratively build a wall around us to shut out the interaction and influence of a discerning world community.

Like all sociopaths, he is charming and charismatic, and has lulled a certain percentage of our population (not the majority by any stretch) into a comforting and inspiring vision of their own superiority.
There is no telling how far away from democracy his ethos of might-makes-right may take us but it is undeniably a rejection of the very principles upon which America was founded and has evolved."

More:
http://tinyurl.com/jcuxbor



Washington State Elector in "Hail Mary" Bid To Unseat Trump"
http://kuow.org/post/washington-state-elector-hail-mary-bid-unseat-trump


"9 Things You May Not Know About The Electoral College"
http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-electoral-college

4) "On rare occasions, electors do not vote as pledged"

The Constitution and federal law do not require electors to abide by the results of the popular vote in their states, so occasionally "faithless electors" go rogue and cast ballots for candidates other than the one to whom they are pledged.
A slight majority of states require electors to cast their votes as pledged, although no "faithless elector" has ever been prosecuted.


More on the Electoral College:
http://www.fairvote.org/the_electoral_college

[bpositive]

1. Wishful thinking

But ain't gonna happen.

Unfortunate, but we lost.

[riversedge]

2. They need to be aware of how each one of us thinks about the election.

[bpositive]

5. Agree

Suppose it might make a difference but I'm not convinced any of the electors would switch their vote.

[andym]

3. Electors are party loyalists, not neutral citizens.

So it will never happen.

[stopbush]

7. Yep. As party loyalists, the best one could expect is they vote for Pence

as president. Out of the frying pan...

[Silver Gaia]

15. And THAT is exactly WHY it doesn't work the way the founding fathers envisioned it.

They HAVE to be neutral in order to review all the facts and make the final decision. Our modern version of their grand idea of a buffer zone of reason and intellect is corrupt. Without neutrality, it cannot function as intended.

[andym]

22. Yes that is perhaps the strongest reason for the elimination of the electoral college

The electoral college no longer provides a "check" against potential dictators, tyrants or unqualified candidates. Although one person, one vote is strong too.

[Ken Burch]

4. Thanks for doing that, Ani.

And we have every right to try.

After all, after the 2008 results came in, right-wingers were pushing for electors to chose McCain as president and Joe Biden as veep.

[red dog 1]

13. I agree!

Thanks to Ani DiFranco for her HuffPo piece, and we DO "have every right to try."

What the hell do we have to lose?

If only 37 electors decide not to vote for Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives will decide who becomes POTUS.

(BTW, Hillary Clinton's latest vote count is 1.4 million more than Trump's)

[Ken Burch]

6. I just put the link to the Huff Post article in "Tiny Url" form. Just checked. it works.

http://tinyurl.com/jcuxbor

[red dog 1]

8. Thanks very much for that link

[MiniMe]

9. I think a lot of states require their electors to vote how the state voted

[red dog 1]

11. 29 states require electors to vote as they are pledged

http://www.fairvote.org/the_electoral_college

[Grey Lemercier]

14. many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge

[red dog 1]

16. So what?

If there were at least 37 electors who refused to vote for Trump, he would not become POTUS on Dec. 19, and thus would not be able to appoint an ultra-right-wing Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia.

So, even if "those requirements would not stand in a court challenge,"
the ultimate decision would likely be made by the current SCOTUS, which would likely split 4-4, thus not affirming the lower court challenge, and Trump would have to get the approval of the House of Representatives, which might just vote for a more moderate Republican POTUS.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. First

Congress doesn't have to accept the vote of any elector, so they can just reject the any faithless electors.
Second, there would be no reason for this to go to the Supreme Court, because if neither candidate has enough electors, the House will decide.

[red dog 1]

28. The only way the House will decide, is if...

...enough electors pledged to Trump (at least 37) refuse to vote for him.

If it comes down to the House deciding, there is at least a possibility that they will choose someone other than Trump, since all the House Dems would probably vote with House Repubs for another candidate.

I only brought up the SCOTUS point for the possibility of a lower court decision allowing electors to not vote for Trump.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. Exactly

Which is exactly what will happen if there are faithless electors - their votes will be rejected, and with neither candidate having 270 electors, the House will decide.

And the House can't choose a candidate other than Trump or Clinton - they are limited to voting on candidates who received electoral votes.

[red dog 1]

32. "they are limited to voring on candidates who received electoral votes"?

What is your source for this?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. The Constitution of the United States

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[red dog 1]

36. Thanks, I didn't know that.

[Grey Lemercier]

10. bad idea, I don't want a 2nd American Civil war or a military coup

with 10,000 nukes at stake

[red dog 1]

17. Are those really the only two options?

What if Trump was denied the presidency by the Republican House of Representatives?

Would that really cause "a 2nd American Civil war or a military coup"?

I don't think so.

[Grey Lemercier]

20. doe you honestly think the House will not vote him in? The only

alternative to Trump if kicked to the House is Hillary. And yes, even if by some miracle some Republicans joined with all the Dems and elected Clinton, you would have Civil War or a military coup or both. I am deadly serious.

In the House you need 26 votes (1 vote per state delegation). I think the Dems control 14 or so. You would need to flip 12 state Republican controlled delegations to vote for her. Never will happen.

[prayin4rain]

24. The House picks out of the three people with the most votes,

presumably Hillary, Trump and Republican X (Pence?, Ryan? ).

I think they'd just put Trump back in but it could weaken his support for the next four years.

[Grey Lemercier]

25. well, its the top 3 in EV's, so to get to 3 people, a faithless elector would have to vote

for someone other than Clinton or Trump

[prayin4rain]

26. Yes, of course. nt

[tavalon]

27. But it's cool that Trump is so thinned skinned

With 10,000 nukes at stake?

[bdamomma]

12. K&R

[longship]

18. Dream on.

That isn't how the system works.

We lost. It's time for us to fight politically in earnest. Because there's no way that we're going to be able to reverse this, at least not without some very serious repercussions. And remember, those guys love guns and talking revolution when they don't get their way.

Unfortunately, Donald Drumpf will be the 45th president of the United States. Gird your loins. It's going to be a very tough four years, and because of SCOTUS, a whole next generation.

[gulliver]

19. But, but that would be unusual.

Lord knows nothing unusual happens in elections in our times.

[VOX]

21. Unfortunately, wishing won't make it so. We're in for a serious ration of hell...

Unless there's a holiday miracle where the Russians confess to a complete hacking of the election.

Otherwise, this what the American system of government and laws have delivered by the will of (just enough) people. It was a rage vote, one that no one will be proud of. Insane days (years?) ahead.

[red dog 1]

30. You're right, wishing won't make it so,

but if 37 electors pledged to Trump vote for someone else, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, and, if that happens, it's "possible" that many Republicans would vote for someone else; and they would likely be joined by nearly all of House Democrats in doing so.

This has nothing to do with "wishing"

This is strictly an Electoral College issue, nothing more.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. Who do you believe they would vote for?

They can only vote for Clinton or Trump...do you really believe that 26 Republican delegations would vote for Clinton?

[red dog 1]

33. Where does it say that they can only vote for Clinton or Trump?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. The Constitution

The House can only choose between the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes.

[red dog 1]

37. Thanks for that

So much for the discussion of the House voting for Mitt Romney if there are 37 or more "faithless electors"