2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumShould the electoral college go rogue? One Harvard professor thinks so
The votes may have all been cast in the presidential election, but the electoral college isnt set to vote until mid-December. And a Harvard professor is arguing that rather than vote for Donald Trump, the clear electoral vote winner, electors should instead buck tradition and tap Hillary Clinton as our nations next president.
Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and former Democratic presidential primary candidate, offered a relatively simple (if unprecedented) reason in a column for The Washington Post Thursday: Clinton won the popular vote handily, and the electors should choose a president based on that.
The question {electors} must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the peoples choice. There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said the fundamental principle of one person, one vote, Lessig writes, referring to Clintons popular vote victory.
He acknowledges that historical precedent is very much in favor of President-elect Donald Trump: The electoral college has twice voted for the winner of the most electoral votes despite the popular vote favoring the loser.
Read more: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/11/25/harvard-professor-calls-for-electoral-college-vote-for-clinton/ndmVyeeN4eAKURI5NCsyCJ/story.html
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)So I don't expect much to happen with that
LisaL
(44,973 posts)They said that they were surprised to be chosen
yardwork
(61,599 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)Maybe several electors could flip but not enough.
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)They could still make Trump president.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)If one supports electoral college, then one should understand that faithless electors are a possibility. So why would GOP then not accept the results?
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)but only so long as it suits them. No way would they allow the votes of faithless Trump electors to count.
And quite frankly, if those two Washington state electors and the two Colorado electors don't vote for Hillary, I'm guessing the Democrats will object to those as well. Doubt the Republicans would toss the votes, but I'm betting the objections would be made.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)We already know we don't have a democracy. We have an electoral college. Constitution doesn't say that congress can refuse electoral college vote.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)3 U.S. Code 15. Basically, as the votes of each state are announced, the VP asks if there are objections. If there is, the objection has to be put in writing and signed by at least one House member and one Senator. If that happens, the House and Senate retire to their own chambers for up to two hours of debate. At the end of the debate, they come back together in Joint Session, and if both chambers agree to the objection, the votes are tossed.
In 2004, there was an objection to the Ohio electoral votes, but they were accepted. I don't know who made the objection or which chamber, if either, agreed with it, I just remember it happening.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)What happens if they toss enough votes that Trump doesn't get to 270?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)and if no one gets 270, it goes to the House.
spin
(17,493 posts)the Oval Office are like my chances of winning the Lotto this week if I buy just one ticket.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)which reminds me, I need to check the Power Ball numbers - thanks! LOL
spin
(17,493 posts)The House could give Hillary the Oval Office. At least there is a extremely small chance for either to happen.
Good luck on your Power Ball Numbers.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Would undermine the orange creature a lot.
spin
(17,493 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)Even if by some miracle 40 electors flipped, congress would still give it to Trump.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)If the GOP establishment was still very anti-Trump....then maybe there would be some of type of plan to get the election to the House.
But they will never, ever give it to Hillary under any circumstance. Why? Because of the Supreme Court. Trump promised the party to nominate conservatives. The party will put up with him as long as he keeps that promise.
That right there is what these electors are thinking about....potentially up to 4 vacancies on the court.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)With the goal being a third electoral candidate, a compromise candidate.
They're not approaching it as "must elect Hillary", but rather "mustn't elect Trump"
treestar
(82,383 posts)A rare condition I think if I remember right that the house chose John Adams. If that's the last time it happened it can mean the vile creature takes office under that shadow.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)"Going Rogue" means electing Cruz or Bush, not Clinton.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)I'm down with that.