For the past month, as you’ve certainly seen, it’s been all the rage within the Democrat community to try and get enough members of the Electoral College to become faithless, which would, at a minimum, send the election to the House of Representatives which would then vote to pick someone. Which would be Trump, really, since they have to chose from those who were running. Their real objective, which they work to deny, is to get enough to switch to make Hillary president.
CNN features yet another of these missives by Scott Piro, supposedly an “Independent” (uh huh), with the typical tag about this not necessarily reflecting the views of CNN. If the shoe was reversed, would CNN be running this type of opinion piece, or would they be shooting down the notion of faithless electors?
It’s time for the Electoral College to fall on its sword
Amid the last month’s exhausting drama around Cabinet picks and presidential tweetstorms, one date stands out — December 19, the day the Electoral College picks our next president.
As hope from Jill Stein’s recount fades for Hillary Clinton’s supporters, another Hail Mary chance to thwart Donald Trump’s presidency has taken its place: that enough members of the Electoral College sworn to vote for Trump will break their pledge and vote to elect an alternate candidate.
America needs 37 “faithless electors” from states Trump won to do this in order to drop him below the 270 threshold and block him from automatically winning the White House. (snip)
There is still one idea with the power not only to end a Trump administration, but also to eradicate democracy’s ugliest anachronism — the Electoral College. Thirty-eight faithless electors from states Trump won switching their votes to Clinton would do it. Regardless of your political affiliation, it would be the best possible thing for America in the long run.
How would this be the best thing? Trump won fair and square according to the rules as set up by the Constitution. The Washington Post’s Charles Lane lays out why the system works. And, let’s face it, if this happens, and Trump doesn’t end up president, do all these sore losers think there will be no consequences? Especially if Hillary wins? The words “violent insurrection” and “rebellion” come to mind.
The Electoral College has contradicted the popular vote in two of the last five presidential elections, electing a Republican president in both those splits. Not surprisingly, many Democrats already favor abolishing it. The system favors the GOP because too many liberal voters live in too few (primarily coastal) states.
Can’t run this type of piece without a Florida 2000 whine.
Swing voters, centrists and moderate Republicans, you have less than a week to join fed-up Democrats in raising hell to persuade 38 Trump electors to vote for Clinton, putting enough pressure on them that they risk whatever fallout may come from their actions. In the short term, it would elect Hillary Clinton, whom you may not support. But in the long run, it’s the only way to take our democracy back. Make the federal government acknowledge we are smart enough to elect our own president.
“you have less than a week to join sore loser Democrats…..it’s the only way to take our democracy back.” Who are they taking their “democracy” back from? The guy who spent time working the people on the ground and earned their votes, as opposed to the woman who spent her time at fundraisers with the 1%ers Democrats say they hate? The guy who worked the system and won? The guy who played by the rules? Democrats are simply setting themselves up to be sore losers for at least the next 4 years.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Faithless electors changing the expected results of the election would further destabilize American democracy. The system needs to be reformed, preferably for a popular election, but if not, at least so that electors are bound in fact, not just by party loyalty.
The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and the electoral college is a fundemental part of the system. If you want a democracy there is a process for changing the constitution…open up your fourth grade social studies book and you can learn all about our government.
The reason the United States is a Constitutional Republic, Bob spelled backwards, is so mob rule or “democracy” as Zachriel calls it doesn’t prevail.
“The system needs to be reformed, preferably for a popular election,”, why? So a mob of radical leftists from four or five states can become the dictators of America? Benjamin Franklin said: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Franklin was a smart an Zachriel, you should try learning from him.
Actually the system does need to be reformed just hot the way Zachriel thinks. Frankly, if we remove the dead, the double triple and more who cast votes amd the non-citizens now voting thanks to motor voter the democrats lost the popular vote by and estimated 4 million votes. They even had to shut down the recount in Detroit because 37% of the districts were showing more democrat votes than their entire population so they figured quitting is better than jail.
Seems like one “faithless elector” is just another lying attention whore.
Almost as bad as the little lying psycho guy lying about serving in the Army during the Vietnam War.
You be the judge.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/texas-news/no-record-of-faithless-elector-chris-suprun-as-a-911-first-responder/371421191
The U.S. is considered a democracy, because it has universal suffrage. It is also a constitutional republic, because laws are enacted through elected representatives under a written constitution.
That is correct. Under the current system, electors can vote for anyone they want, and it’s not clear that state laws can bind them.
The Electoral College is an obvious anachronism. Consider it a peccadillo, if you like, that we think that everyone should have an equal say.
In any case, if you retain the Electoral College, then the electors should be bound in fact, not just by party loyalty. Otherwise, in a very close electoral college election, an unknown elector with no real constituency could throw the system into turmoil, further undermining the U.S. electoral system.
There is no evidence that millions of ineligible persons voted.
That is not correct. What happened is that many counting machines malfunctioned on election day. They don’t have early voting, and an obscure state law doesn’t allow for human error. A manual recount of paper ballots would have resolved the issue. This shows a weakness in the U.S. system: it is not robust to error. You’d think after the election in 2000 …
Nonsense.
Some states may have laws which bind electors, but they have never been enforced against faithless electors.
That’s not what you wrote…
And if you would do a little research you would find that that statement is incorrect, misleading, and therefore, nonsense.
Btw, how many of you kids are posting under the Zach nic today?
Instead of mightily waving your hands, you might try to provide some sort of content to your comments.
While there have been faithless electors, none have ever been punished under state law.
https://www.archives.gov/global-pages/exit.html?link=http://www.nass.org/component/docman/?task=doc_download&gid=1864&Itemid=391
Read and learn.
No one has typed anything about punishment except y’all.
To give CNN a little credit, Alisyn Camarotta had a brief segment this morning, in which she was talking to six very disappointed Clinton voters, and she drew from them the hope that somehow, some way, the electoral college would overturn the election results. After the taped segment, Miss Camarotta pooh-poohed that notion as fantasy.
We already addressed the fact that some states have laws that regulate electors. Try to read more carefully. While there have been faithless electors in the past, none have ever been punished under state law.
Under the current system, electors can vote for whomever they want, and it’s not clear that state laws can bind them as state laws have never been applied.
To be a ‘faithless elector,’ you have to be a liar. Chris Suprun, the famed rogue elector who posted an op-ed in The New York Times, apparently lied about being a 9/11 first responder, and lied about his whole adult life, really.
Mr Suprun made it known as early as August that he was having trouble with the idea of voting for Donald Trump, but he, and all of the other elector candidates, knew by April who the nominees would be; any elector who chooses not to support the candidate to whom he is pledged has lied to the voters and committed a fraud against them.
Someone can change their mind. That doesn’t mean they lied. The purported history of the elector shows the problem with the selection process.
As electors are a federal constitutional office, there is a very real question whether a state can bind an elector legally. State laws have never been applied, so have never been tested in courts.
Zachriel wrote:
That probably due to the fact that they’ve never had any impact. There was one faithless elector in 2004, pledged to John Kerry, but she cast her ballot for his vice presidential running mate, John Edwards. One of Al Gore’s electors in 2000 abstained. There has never been more than one faithless elector since 1896, other than in 1912, when eight Republican electors chose not to vote for the vice presidential candidate, who had already died.
That’s irrelevant to enforcing the law. If the law is valid, then it must need be enforced.
Indeed, if such a law is constitutional, it should be enforced *before* it becomes a constitutional crisis so there is a precedent. The reason these laws are never enforced is because few think it will hold up in court.
Therefore,
Is incorrect, misleading, and nonsensical.
Fellas, y’all proved my point.
And y’all should try to coordinate your comments a little better before posting so y’all don’t appear so clueless.
Huh? Yes, there are laws on the books. That’s not the issue raised, so pointing out that there are laws on the books doesn’t address the issue, which is whether those laws are constitutional. As they have never been enforced, that indicates that the states recognize that they may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Glad to see y’all want immigration laws enforced and sanctuary cities held to account.
You all do realize this is nothing more than an attempt to DE-LEGITIMIZE TRUMP RIGHT?
Remember the same guy that went on and on about OBAMA NOT BEING BORN IN THE USA and therefore an ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT>……..you do realize this is why suddenly the left has jumped on this bandwagon with both feet and its why Obama is hitting back hard and hitting the talk shows with Trump basically not being the prez because of the Russians……
PAY BACKS ARE HELL in DC POLITICS and trump right now is going to spend the rest of his 4-8 years getting paid back for his birtherism.
Simple as that…..
And if the USA really does want a civil war….they need to elect someone other then Trump come electoral college day………guaranteed that will start one.
Uh, yes it was and y’all raised it.
The rest from y’all is spinning.
Quit while y’all are ahead.
The left doesn’t want a civil war they want what they’ve always wanted: to discredit and ultimately destabilize the Republic and replace it with a one party (Read democrat/socialist) dictatorship. They will at first call it a “democracy” but when there is only one party that can win it really isn’t a matter of freedom any longer.
Besides, how can the left fight a civil war when their “men” are Pajama Boys, their “women” Julia’s and their leaders are afraid of guns?
Yeah, there’s no voter fraud. I’ve seen it Jeffery, with my own eyes.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9kcSlCyCs7Q/V-Spu6o62XI/AAAAAAABCN0/BWj-jaTH_KQ44X_E1NZ4BaWKxNTjTv_jACLcB/s640/1%2B1%2B1ninetymilesg6zLH1qzm7u9o1_1280.jpg
Or it is far more likely that the cases were not pursued because the elector who violated the law and their oath wouldn’t have made a difference in the overall election.
Their breaking the law and their morals would be rendered moot so there would be no reason to pursue the case.
It is just stunning that Zach admits there are laws on the books and wants people to violate those laws in order to steal an election.
To be fair, Der Trumpenfuhrer’s election is not all bad: subscriptions to the NYT, vanity Fair, WSJ, the New Yorker the Atlantic are up.
Teach exhorting his followers…
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Flying+Monkey+Wizard+of+Oz+Original+Movie&view=detailv2&&id=C91084586D6FD4B68D516C0306B99AA000FBB876&selectedIndex=122&ccid=t8vbqcEj&simid=608002722822030315&thid=OIP.Mb7cbdba9c123da7f9baab6fda2ab9f58o0&ajaxhist=0
So Obama decided not to announce that the CIA had uncovered the Kremlin’s role in supporting Trump because he thought it would be unfair. How quaint, how naive. LOL, fair elections. If Republican Comey had been so naive.
So Obama decided not to announce that the CIA had uncovered the Kremlin’s role in supporting Trump because he thought it would be unfair. How quaint, how naive. LOL, fair elections. If Republican Comey had been so naive.
The left started all this crap…..It just took the Republicans a couple decades to figure out how to fight the war the left started.
This only proves what we have all been saying…..OBAMA is an idiot….hes not the smartest man in the room…hell hes not even very smart…..politically hes not saavy at all and he surrounded himself with young guns who got their lunches eaten year after year by political opponents and foreign countries all over the world..
This just proves how Ignorant Obama was…..progressives HATE, LOATHE and DESPISE the intell agencies and the military……to use them during an election in WHICH THEIR GAL WAS ALREADY WINNING would have been catastrophic for down range candidates……..
But now…..Now that they lost, got hammered…..Obama suddenly has seen the light and now the Russians are coming….the Russians are coming…..
Under Obama we have ZERO alliances around the world anymore…..No one trusts the USA other then to be committed to reducing co2 which of course everyone in the world knows how drastically things can change in the USA with just ONE ELECTION….so all our allies view us with a wary, tired eye and their misgivings about the Obama foreign policy is legion.
Jimmy Carter tried to GUT the CIA back when he was president……In fact he did so saying we needed to rely on electronic spying and take the human element out of the equation…..Well guess what…..The electronic spying just outted a whole bunch of Democratic crooks who IMO should be facing 30 years in prison.
I wonder if Jeffery realizes that two congressmen were just convicted of money laundering and are going to jail for 10 years…………….They both are Democrats….and they both are B L A C K!! Justice for all? Not in Obama’s administration.
Our argument is that the constitutionality of laws that bind electors is an open question.
Republicans are more than able to win majorities of the national vote, most recently in 2004.
States would still pursue such cases as a deterrent to future faithless electors. The reason they are never pursued is because the states don’t want to take the chance of being overruled by the federal courts.
Actually, Obama took it to Congressional leaders in a secret meeting, and McConnell threatened to rebuke the Obama administration if it publicly challenged Russia.
Actually, world approval of the U.S. is generally higher now than when Obama first took office.
No they wouldn’t Zach. The case would be rendered moot by the result.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that the Federal courts would have any say in the matter other than to rule whether the states can choose their electors and set rules for the electors to abide by. \
That’s already pretty well established law.
You’re repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any stronger or better.
You made that up. The laws do not have an exception for when the vote doesn’t change the final tally.
That is incorrect. In Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court found that they did have jurisdiction, and that the states could require a pledge. While they didn’t directly rule on whether pledges were enforceable, they certainly indicated that there may be an assumed constitutional freedom.
Well NOW it is after your original statement was proven incorrect, misleading, and nonsensical.
Z: Under the current system, electors can vote for anyone they want, and it’s not clear that state laws can bind them.
Our statement the same as the constitutional question, and is fully defensible. Electors can vote for whomever they want. Whether they can be sanctioned under state law is an unanswered question. Again, see Ray v. Blair.
You don’t understand what you are talking about. There are many cases where the result of the case won’t change anything, so the case is rendered moot.
Sorry, but it is correct.
Your cited case notes the Constitution grants the states the right to their electors and how those electors are chosen.
The Supreme Court allowed the States – not the Federal government – to make laws and rules governing the selection of electors and their obligations under that selection.
You really do seem to have issues when the laws are against you. The fact of the matter is that laws allow the states to enforce agreements between the electors and the parties. Violations of those laws can result in penalties.
It’s not legally moot, though. That’s the point. Perhaps you mean non-consequential, but that is another matter entirely. And states have a vested interest in setting a precedent to ensure deterrence.
And in Ray v. Blair directly acknowledge that there may be “an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college”.
Just what do you think “moot” means?
Let me help you:
Mootness. In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.
Mootness issues can arise in cases in which the plaintiff challenges actions or policies which are temporary in nature, in which factual developments after the suit is filed resolve the harm alleged, and in which claims have been settled.
If an elector does not vote for their pledged candidate, there is no longer harm to the party if the candidate wins anyway.
The case in US law would be rendered moot.
Your ridiculous idea that “inconsequential” is not part of case being “moot” is unsupported in law.
Geez, you really took that out of context, didn’t you?
That actual context shows the falsity of your claims:
However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. A candidacy in the primary is a voluntary act of the applicant. He is not barred, discriminatorily, from participating, but must comply with the rules of the party. Surely one may voluntarily assume obligations to vote for a certain candidate. The state offers him opportunity to become a candidate for elector on his own terms, although he must file his declaration before the primary. Code of Ala. Tit. 17, § 145. Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters. Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice.
We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention.
The SCOTUS was, as it often does, playing a bit of a “devil’s advocate.” It wasn’t saying they held that a elector may vote for whom they choose, but rather if one were to argue (as you are) that the elector could not vote against their pledge to the party (and by extension, the general population.)
Let’s review:
You’re wrong on the case against an elector being moot because you don’t or refuse to acknowledge that actual meaning of “moot” in the law.
You citation of Ray v. Blair shows the exact opposite of what you want it to say because you cherry picked a potential argument, and not a settled point.
Git,
Their arguments are moot.
That’s correct. And just because a faithless elector doesn’t change the results doesn’t mean the issue is moot under the state law.
But faithless elector laws are not based on harm to the party. They are based on a broken pledge.
That’s right. The Court ruled that states can require a pledge, but the Court acknowledges that the issue of whether the pledge is legally binding is left unresolved. Your claim is that the issue is resolved, which is false.
Actually it is moot.
What is the goal of the suit? To get the elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote for.
If that candidate wins, there issue of their vote is moot.
It is settled law no matter how you want to frame it.
A broken pledge with harms the party and the electorate. Once that harm is gone, the issue is moot.
No, it is not. Read the citation in context again.
Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it so.
Once again, you are taking an argument that the SCOTUS dismisses and then trying to say the argument prevails.
As the SCOTUS has ruled that the elector can be required to pledge they would vote in a certain manner, that is a contract between the parties. As the SCOTUS opinion says, if you don’t like the rules, don’t sign up.
However, as I said, the pledge is a contract which is legally enforceable.
In essence, you are trying to say that a contract, with performance provisions and known penalties cannot be enforced.
Good luck with that ridiculous idea as you are setting back English law and jurisprudence over a thousand years.
No. Most state laws are meant to punish faithless electors. Those laws don’t become moot because it doesn’t change the result of the election. For instance, Colorado’s Republican Secretary of State has threatened to prosecute any elector who violates their pledge.
No. The Ray v. Blair decision clearly indicates that it is an open issue.
As noted by the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, such pledges may be “legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution”. The issue was left unresolved.
Lots of contracts are unenforceable under the Constitution or law. Where in Heavens did you get the idea otherwise?
The only time that ‘faithless electors’ had any impact was the election of 1836, when 23 electors from Virginia refused to vote for the winning Vice Presidential candidate, Richard M Johnson, due to Mr Johnson’s open liaison with a slave mistress. This left Mr Johnson one vote short of a majority, but the Senate, which decides the Vice President in the event the Electoral College does not, then elected Mr Johnson to the office. Rogue electors have never changed the outcome of the election.
The only election in which the Electoral College did not decide the presidency was in 1824, in which none of the four candidates received an Electoral College majority, and the House of Representatives decided the contest in favor of John Quincy Adams.
So now after shown your error on this, you still retreat to a point that demonstrates you don’t understand the legal meaning of “moott.”
He is free to bring a case that a court will say is moot.
Even after showing that you took your position out of context, you still cling to it.
I can only lead you to the decision. If you stomp your feet and say “I am not going to read what it says,” that is not my problem.\
“No it isn’t” is not a position.
Geez your are being moronic. That statement is an argument that the Court rejects and said so. You repeating the same thing after you have been shown to be in error is irritating and childish on your part.
You did the same thing with the Clinton /Comey issue. You lost the debate and continued to come back the same discredited points.
Actually, very few are unenforceable and most resort when there is a difference when there is a lack of a meeting of the mind. Is it your contention that that a elector who pledges to vote for for a certain candidate doesn’t understand what he is agreeing to?
Your arguments are more and more desperate and pitiful.
Git,
These guys keep moving the goal posts.
Fuck them.
DP,
From the content of these guys posts, they have never actually stepped on the field.
:)
The 10th circuit just indicated in a decision that removing electors, or restricting their electoral independence is probably not constitutional. In their order, the judges said any attempt by Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams to remove electors “after voting has begun” would be “unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment.” They also cited Ray v. Blair.
A white Protestant-only covenant, very common in the 20th century, is a prominent counterexample.
It’s not so much that you are wrong, or refuse to look at your own views skeptically, but that you rely so much upon your certainty that you feel the need to sputter insults.
— A very intelligent college student with smart looking glasses and a plaid onesie holding a cup of hot cocoa
drowningpuppies,
The 10th circuit late Friday indicated that removing electors, or restricting their electoral independence is probably not constitutional. In their order, the judges said any attempt by Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams to remove electors “after voting has begun†would be “unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment.†They also cited Ray v. Blair.
Y’all tend to repeat yourselves.
Y’all tend to ignore arguments.