40 Electoral College members demand briefing on Russian interference
Note that 39 of them are Democratic electors, which means they won't vote for Trump even if the briefing says he's the greatest human being since Jesus of Nazareth and that the media completely fabricated the Russian involvement.
They don't need a briefing on anything. They have ONE JOB to do - cast their vote for who the American voters in their states told them to! Their personal preferences are of no concern whatsoever!
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true, they don't hsve to get a briefing. They do not have to vote for whomever won their state. They can choose whoever they want. The state cannot compel them to vote a certain way.
ReplyDeleteTwenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors. In the other twenty-one states, electors are not compelled to vote for a pledged candidate.
DeleteThere needs to be a federal statute that requires electors to vote as they have been instructed or face jail and fines. To that end, I have written to my two Senators suggesting such a law.
DeleteThose laws are in a legal grey area. The states can require a pledge to vote a certain way, but the US Constitution allows voters to vote the want. The Supreme Court has yet to rule that those laws are constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Constitution does not 'allow' the voters to vote any way they want. It simply states that the electors shall meet in their respective states and cast ballots for two persons and the person with the highest number of ballots (votes) (as determined by the states, presumably by the people's vote) shall be determined to be President.
DeleteIf there is any reason for making an amendment to the Constitution, as has been suggested for everything from traffic infractions through abortion and anything else someone can think of, this is one that should be. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution should be amended to include the requirement of voting for the candidate who won the individual state. The Founding Fathers did not include such a requirement because they did not recognize the possibility of a 'faithless elector'.
Sure they did, otherwise there would be no need for electors in the first place. If the FFs simply wanted the states' votes to be automatically awarded based on the popular vote in that state, they would have simply created it that way. By adding the intermediary of an elector, they considered occasions when the elector might have to differ from the mandate of the vote count (for example, if evidence of the President-elect committing a major crime were to appear, or if the President-elect were revealed to be the agent of a foreign government.)
DeleteNothing so drastic pertains to this case. People are asking the electors to vote against Trump because they are unhappy with the results. That's NOT why the college exists.
Moreover, the FFs never intended for the people to vote for the President at all. They meant for the people to vote for electors, who would then choose a President. Hamilton wrote: "The people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President." (FedPap 68)
If the electors feel that Trump is not fit, they should not vote for him. This decision, however, should be a deliberative and conscientious process, not an expression of sour grapes. Yes, Donald Trump is a shallow blowhard, but that does not mean ipso facto he is unfit for the Presidency.
Highly debatable. I think Scoopy you are, for whatever reason underestimating the reality of Donald Trump.
DeleteIn so far as I assume you haven't seen the CIA report, I don't see how you can actually know that neither he is an agent of Putin or, more likely, that people in his campaign team/transition team/upcoming Administration (if he's elected) aren't, in fact, agents of Putin.
The U.S Constitution also lists grounds for impeachment. In addition to the vague 'high crimes and misdemeanors' it also lists three specific charges, two of which are treason and bribery.
My reading of the definitions of these things indicate to me that Trump, even before assuming office, has already therefore committed two impeachable offenses:
1.Treason is defined to include such things as inducing foreign powers to get involved in U.S elections.
2.Bribery is things like his refusal to sell of his businesses to independent third parties.
While he is correct that it isn't illegal for a President to engage in passive conflicts of interests, actively using his office to further his business interests is one of the definitions of bribery.
So, yes, the Electoral College electors have every reason to deliberatively and conscientiously vote for a different person, I would suggest Mitt Romney.
And your view that this is nothing but 'sour grapes' is another mindless talking point put out by the Trump team.
I wouldn't be surprised if you would reply to this something along the lines of "The Democrats need to be careful here so that they aren't perceived as Anti democratic sore losers."
I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but that's another of the Trump team (or his enablers) mindless talking points.
39 of those forty electors are already going to vote for someone else. (I presume the fortieth is as well.)
DeleteI am perhaps the most anti-Trump person in the country. I'm the guy who chastised my voters for NOT selecting Trump as Douchebag of the Millennium. His prospective administration and his selection of underlings is positively terrifying. I would love to see his count dip below 270 so the HoR could select somebody else. ...
But providing that briefing to forty people who have no intention of voting for him in the first place is an empty symbolic gesture, to say the least. If there was something which could persuade 40 TRUMP electors to vote for somebody else, let freedom ring! (But no such smoking gun seems to exist.)
Note that the faithless would have to come to some agreement about who they were going to vote for, because the House of Rep. can only choose from the top three in the Electoral College race. Thus, if Trump dropped below 270, the House would only be offered a choice of Trump, Hillary and Third Place Person - even if the latter got only two votes from Faithless Electors while everyone else got one apiece! In such a case, some totally obscure internet webmaster, if a native-born American citizen over the age of 35, could sneak in. My bags are packed, and I'm ready to pick my cabinet. I don't know anybody in power, but I think I could do as well as Trump. Pretty much anyone would be a better head of the DOE than Rick Perry. I think I might go with Gallagher. He's energetic.
And, hey, if the Congress later decides to remove Trump from office, that just hands the Presidency to ol' Mike Pence. I guess that's better.
Maybe.
Kinda.
Totally agree, I've been saying the same thing elsewhere, but, I think you'd agree that my post was already too long!
DeleteOn a hopefully more important matter, I've mostly been downloading videos of nude scenes and then not watching them, but of all the nude scenes I remember, my favorite was Dakota Johnson in A Bigger Splash. So, I just wanted to remind you of her in the annual nude scenes poll (if you're going to do that this year).
I know there are people who don't think she's attractive, but I think they're crazy.
If I was one of those electors and it was close enough to matter, I'd vote "Not the Oompa Loompa" and you could jam my ass in prison. It would be worth it.
ReplyDeleteApparently Lee Atwater came up with a contingency plan to swing an election by blackmailing/bribing enough electors to swing a state - the catch being that the election has to be very close in the first place.
Larry Beinhart, who wrote the book that became the movie Wag the Dog, fictionalized this plan in a novel called The Librarian. I was able to get a copy at my local library. How meta! Anyway, good book, worth your time.
There needs to be a federal statute that requires the elimination of the electoral college. To that that end I have written to your two Senators suggesting such a law.
ReplyDeleteOk, I accept that you are an idiot, that's not against the law. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to avoid the very situation that we have this election - control of the election by a single state. Clinton supposedly won the 'popular vote' by about 2.2 million votes. The count in NEW YORK CITY alone was Clinton ahead by 1.95 million votes. Assuming you do not live in that city, do YOU want New York City residents controlling who will be President? I don't!
DeleteYou're right. It's much better than we have the cast of Honey Boo Boo controlling it, eh, comrade?
DeleteThe electoral college literally enables the situation you are supposedly against. Assuming you do not live in one of those three states, do YOU want Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin residents controlling who will be President. I know I don't! Maybe, just maybe, the votes of the entire country should decide who becomes President. But what do I know, I'm just an idiot.
DeleteThe Gent, you are an easily manipulated idiot.
ReplyDeleteThat is what Republicans have wanted you to believe is the reason the Electoral College exists, but it's wrong:
"A look at the contemporary discussions in the 1780s and James Madison's notes on the debate in the Constitutional Convention shows that this is incorrect – the Electoral College was actually created to both separate the powers and combat corruption from both foreign and domestic sources."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/why-electoral-college-is-here-to-stay-commentary.html
I'm Canadian and even I know the U.S Constitution says no such thing about requiring the Electoral College Voters to vote for the candidates who received the highest number of votes in their states.
You should check out your pocket Constitution.