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.
Ahem….
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-colorado-elector-removed-after-refusing-1482178568-htmlstory.html
Oops.
That “rebellion” didn’t turn out so well for Hillary and the Democrats despite their threats against Republican electors.
But here’s the thing….even though I get a laugh out of what happened to Hillary and the Democrat faithless electors, if they signed a pledge to vote for a certain candidate, they too should be facing penalties. That doesn’t mean they HAVE face a penalty as prosecutorial discretion and thinking that the result renders their actions moot may result in the electors will not be prosecuted or punished.
But they should be.
If the electors signed a legally pledge that indicated penalties and failed to live up to that pledge, they should be held accountable.
I suspect that Zach and people of his ilk will only want to hold Republican electors accountable which shows their bias and lack or a true moral compass. If it is good for one side of the political spectrum, it is good for that other. I would be for addressing all faithless electors regardless of party affiliation.
BTW Zach, you wondering why cases of faithless electors are not prosecuted because people know that they couldn’t win falls flat on one other critical issue: in order for a case like this to go forward, you’d need the party to pursue it in a complaint.
You cannot make the party file a complaint so in most cases, the party will let it go for any number of reasons.
No matter how you look at it, you “logic” of “the laws are enforceable because they have not been” is ridiculous and flies in the face of the law.