I am one of those 538 National Elector's and yes the Electoral College is in play

[Coyotl]

I am one of those 538 National Elector's and yes the Electoral College is in play
By RWN Sunday Nov 20, 2016

I am one of the Electoral College Electors from Colorado. This is by virtue of Hillary Clinton prevailing in Colorado (moving me from a nominated certified Elector to “actual” Elector. Late last week I canvassed half my fellow CO Electors beginning with Micheal Baca who is mentioned here in the Denver Post article: Colorado presidential elector seeks to block Donald Trump from White House, and also including talking to numerous political reporters in both print and national on line media, (AKA; John Frank the author of the above article and Kyle Cheney from Politico, author of this article, Here are the people who will cast the formal vote for president next month​, political science and presidential history university scholars, law school professors, political professionals, elected and government officials and I have come to the conclusion: INDEED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IN AN HISTORIC PLAY. Where this goes is speculation but sentiment is building that the Electors cannot sit by and be ceremonial.

This assertion is based on the above observations where each Elector I talked to are interested in participating in action. This includes the majority being Hillary supporters and party regulars. The reporters and political persons all tell me they are hearing similar, consistent, sentiments across this country. The fact that this election cycle has consistently been unprecedented, and unpredictable, and as those who know math, and mathematical trends, know that trends continue until the something stops that trend line. So why would this election cycle stop being weird until it is constitutionally over? No reason, and why the framers put in the Electoral College in the first place.

Something else that is apparent is that National Electors will have to choose between their partisanship and finding a rational and responsible pathway to doing what is best for the nation fulfilling their constitutional duties of protecting our constitutional form of government from excesses of democracy, (or corruption or manipulation), and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation. Previously, all predictions and expectations regarding this election’s outcome regarding the projection Electoral College are based on Electors being wholly partisan, and yet those are not the sentiments from my fellow Colorado’s Electors, nor are they what I am being told are sentiments by some Republican Electors.

So where is this leading us over the next 30 days or so to December 19, 2016, which is Electoral College Day? ............

[SickOfTheOnePct]

1. I guess these electors still don't understand

that they don't have the final say.

[Ruth Bonner]

5. The electors do have the final say in this election, the

Consequences may be rough to ride out, but if ever there was a time for the electoral college to act as a safety valve and save us from ourselves now would be the time.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. No they don't

Congress has the final say. They can reject every single Electoral vote, if they so choose.

[Ruth Bonner]

7. Okay. Thank you. I need to read more. Do you have a link you could share?

If it requires an up or down vote in Congress, then the electors acting so boldly may sway enough Republican members to accept the results if they reject Trump?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. Here you go

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#contestvotes

[KittyWampus]

9. "If they so choose". But doing so would weaken Trump.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. How so? n/t

[paleotn]

21. I wish that were true....

...but probably not. It would be so easy for Trump's minions to frame it as "See, I told you it was rigged! They're trying to steal the election!" and only strengthen Trumpkin's position. Any Rethug in Congress who dares to vote against Trump in this scenario will be DOA in their next reelection bid. Since power comes before everything in their minds, even the health of our democracy, I just don't see any of them doing that. Not enough to matter at any rate. I put no faith in Rethugs ever doing the right thing.

I think our only hope is for Trumpkin to destroy himself, sooner rather than later and the odds of that are pretty high. I just hope he doesn't burn down the Republic in the process.

[bigmonkey]

53. Really, helpless hope is our only refuge?

Fighting would be wrong, is that what you are suggesting?

[nolabels]

61. Okay then, when they start fighting with each other over who gets the best spoils..........

Please tell them it's wrong

[scarletlib]

2. I would like to believe you, but it will never happen.

[hlthe2b]

3. As much as I want to grasp onto any straw of hope...

I don't see this happening..Though it would be one time in my life I would SO LOVE to be WRONG. And, I'd surely welcome all the "i told you so's" that coud ever come my way, if so.

But watching so many "Never Trump" R Congress wretches fall in line, has me unable to believe in the innate "good" of those in positions of power on this score.

[Ruth Bonner]

11. I get that it is disheartening to take action that has little chance of success...

and I feel responsible to try. I worked my ass off for Obama's election in 2008 and donated a ton of money up and down the ticket. Put in hours for the 2012 election, too. Got cocky, got lazy, made a donation to Clinton and a donation to the DCCC and figured others would step up. Now, post-election, money is flying out of my bank account (and my husband is a year from retirement and our budget is tight) and I need to take action.

[libtodeath]

4. If they loved this country they will vote their concience.

[turbinetree]

8. 246 and 55 have no conscience

none, zilch, nada

[-Steph-]

10. I want to believe this so much.

[alfredo]

14. The term is faithless electors

Read this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

State laws prohibit punishing the faithless elector, but it seems it isn't enforced.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. And when Congress rejects the votes of the faithless electors? n/t

[alfredo]

20. I don't think they'd default to trump. The house plays a part in all this.

Read the 12th amendment.

MENU
Amendment XII

RESOURCES
Home

Amendment XII
ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804. The 12th Amendment changed a portion of Article II, Section 1. A portion of the 12th Amendment was changed by the 20th Amendment


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 of 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 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.

[guillaumeb]

31. This was previously linked:

Under federal law an objection to a state’s Electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress’s counting of Electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

So both Houses of Congress would have to debate if Electoral College votes for Trump are cast for another candidate. And given that both Houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP, what makes anyone feel that
A) the Electoral College electors who are sworn to Trump will somehow decide to cast their votes for Clinton, and
B) that the GOP controlled Congress would uphold this move?

[stevenleser]

35. First I don't believe this will happen. But, lets assume it does. It wouldn't do us any good.

Let's say that we have enough faithless electors to sway the vote from Trump to Hillary.

Congress would reject those electoral votes which would throw the election into congress with the House deciding the President and the senate the Vice President.

We would still end up with Trump.

[guillaumeb]

36. Agreed. This is nothing more than a refusal to realize what happened in the election.

And what the consequences of voter apathy and voter ignorance truly are.

[dixiegrrrrl]

42. Or they could NOT vote for Trump but then Pence would get it:

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 case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

[alfredo]

49. Then we keep on resisting.

[stevenleser]

50. There is no resisting. They have the Constitution on their side.

As things stand, there is no Constitutional process that leads to Trump not being inaugurated.

[alfredo]

54. I understand that, and that resisting the Republicans is our only course going forward.

[alfredo]

47. Let's say Hillary's chances are slim or none, unless there's a huge bombshell about trump

before the vote.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. You're completely missing the point

Congress can object to, and reject, any electoral vote.

Take the following scenario...

Assuming Michigan goes for Trump, which seems likely, the expected electoral college count would be 306 for Trump, 232 for Clinton.

On 6 Jan 2017, a Joint Session of Congress convenes to count electoral votes, starting alphabetically with Alabama. The President of the Senate announces the vote for each state, and if there is no objection, the vote is counted. They follow this process all the way to Florida, and to this point there are no faithless electors...as they get ready to count Florida's electoral votes, the tally is Trump 106, Clinton 77.

But when Florida's votes are announced, instead of 29 for Trump, it's 28 for Trump and 1 for Clinton. The President of the Senate, announces the vote, and immediately there is an objection. A written objection, signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate, is submitted. The Joint session immediately stops, and the Senate retires to their chamber for debate and a vote on the objection, as does the House. They have two hours to debate the objection. At the end of the debate or two hours, whichever comes first, the Joint session reconvenes, and the votes of the House and Senate are announced. If both the House and the Senate agree with the objection, the vote is rejected. If they disagree, the vote is counted.

Given that there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, it's a pretty safe assumption that in this scenario, the single vote will be rejected, and the remaining 28 will be counted. Now the electoral count is Trump 134, Clinton 77.

Say that 36 other Trump-pledged electors are also faithless, and further assume that the Republican House and the Republican Senate reject each of those electoral votes. Assume that all of Clinton's pledged electoral votes are faithful. Now the count is Trump 269, Clinton 232.

No electoral majority winner, so the Presidential election goes to the House, while the Vice Presidential election (assuming that the Trump-faithless electors were also Pence-faithless electors, although that needn't necessarily be the case), and each state gets one vote, meaning 26 votes will win the election. They can only vote on candidates who received electoral votes, so it's going to be either Trump or Clinton. Currently, 32 states have Republican delegations in the House of Representatives, and the Republicans hold at least a 51-49, but more likely 52-48 majority in the Senate.

So, how do you see a way forward for Clinton to win based on faithless electors?

[alfredo]

48. I was just giving the text of the 12th amendment.

Knowing the mechanism of the EC is well above my pay grade.

[lonestarnot]

16. I have not faith in this fucking crap.

[heaven05]

17. they will fold

and fall into goosestepping lock step behind thec NNPA and their fuhrer. Guaranteed!!!!!

[ancianita]

18. Glad for your post, but what concrete evidence do you have that other states' electors are in play,

again?

I want to believe we've got a shot but I'm still not convinced. Sorry.

[Skinner]

19. This won't happen and should not happen.

People need to let it go.

[libtodeath]

23. What?

I appreciate your work here but I will not let the theft of democracy go.

[Skinner]

25. Electors voting against the legitimate outcome of the election...

....would be a theft of democracy. I am adamently opposed to electors ignoring the will of the voters in their states. It violates a long standing norm of our democracy. If we go down this road then all bets are off -- once the precedent is set, the next time the electors could ignore their states' voters and the national popular vote. Then America is over.

[cilla4progress]

26. No legitimate outcome!

Is the point!

[libtodeath]

27. But there is evidence it isnt legitimate

America is over now if this stands.

[Skinner]

28. The evidence is not compelling. (nt)

[pintobean]

43. Agree 100%.

[LiberalFighter]

30. I disagree. This is not something that we should all let go.

It should be a reminder that we need to continue the fight. Not necessarily the electors. We should continuously remind them that Hillary won the popular votes and Trump does not have a mandate. Also, their issues are wrong.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. I agree

Focus at this point needs to be on ensuring that our elected Reps and Senators know that we want Trump stopped, and on gearing up for a defense of our Senators in 2018.

[stevenleser]

39. I'm inclined to agree. What seems like a good thing now in the heat of the moment would not end up

being a good thing as time goes on.

Just like the whole filibuster thing. That could really bite us in the arse now as I was worried at the time. I'm waiting for that shoe to drop.

[tammywammy]

41. Agreed.

[Ligyron]

22. Well, it would be symbolically significant if nothing else.

Perhaps bad precedence tho'.

The EC needs to go - and THAT definitely needs to happen.

[closeupready]

33. It didn't happen after Gore won the pop. vote, and it won't happen now.

The current system is as lucrative for Dems as it is for Republicans, and no way in hell are they going to seriously entertain the idea of fixing it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Asking the flyover states to give up their say in Presidential elections

right after they've been able to stop a candidate they detest is pretty much a non-starter. I don't see the Electoral College ever being removed via Constitutional amendment, but the National Popular Vote initiative could effectively end it, assuming it passed Constitutional muster.

[Ligyron]

44. If a few more states sign onto the pac it should effectively nullify it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. I think they still need 105 electoral votes

and should they ever get to that number, I expect an immediate court challenge.

[SHRED]

24. I can't imagine the resistance she'd face

But then again we have Obama as an example.

[LiberalFighter]

29. I don't see this happening.

Colorado's delegates will be going to Clinton. The Republican delegates in Colorado do not have a vote.

Even if a sufficient number of delegates in states that Trump won were to not vote for Trump there is no guarantee that they would switch their vote to Clinton. At least 21 would need to do so. They might abstain or vote for someone else.

[closeupready]

32. No, it's not in play.

[Grey Lemercier]

40. this is playing with fire, and will never happen

Enough damage has been and will be done, if this route were taken, it not only will end in failure but sets up nightmare scenarios down the road.

Imagine if we win in 2020 with a close EV vote, mired in one or 2 crazy recounts and then faithless electors throw it into a Republican house, who then selects Trump.

Not to mention that just the very act of breaking the EC tradition will make us look terrible, and turn 75% of the country against us, thus further empowering Trump.

We just have to hunker down and fight off Trumpism as best we can the legitimate way.

[duffyduff]

46. Only enough Republicans in the House could make this a reality, BUT

they should be well aware of how utterly DERANGED many of these Trump supporters are. They could literally kill people if "their" media-promoted candidate was not allowed in the WH.

[bigmonkey]

52. Things the Constitution specifies are legitimate.

You prefer not fighting tooth and nail because it's more seemly? Seemly didn't suffice this last election. The Republicans have no such compunctions, they suggested similar stuff in 2000.

[Grey Lemercier]

56. Republican electors will never flip in sufficient enough numbers to to elect Clinton, and even if

they did the Republican House will elect Trump by voiding the EC vote, as posters above explained. The damage to the Democratic party at that point would be devastating. We would be labeled as the party of an attempted coup d' etat. The 2018 elections would hand the Republicans 300 plus seats in the House and over 60 in the Senate (that 60 seat majority may happen no matter what, especially if Trump has a decent 2 year opening run).

But lets say the House did put an imaginary Republican (who would be a person who some of the electors vote for. say Kasich). Millions of Trump fanatics would go full civil war. I am not joking in the slightest.

The Republicans in the House would never do this for so many reasons. A major reason is that they would place their entire dominance at risk. They control all three branches of Federal Government soon (after a Republican in placed on the SCOTUS), they control a huge, absolutely dominant, number of State legislatures, governorships and state-wide elected offices. They are positioned extremely well for further gerrymandering post-2020 census, which will ensure another decade of House control. They would never risk all this, plus risk massive country-wide bloodshed to elect a mainstream Republican conservative via shenanigans with the EC and the House. Lastly, they would NEVER,ever, ever, ever vote in Hillary Clinton, so I fail to see the point of any of this wild, rash, potentially nation-busting talk.

We lost at every level, we lost at many levels (fed and state) legitimately (as in normal, if hate-filled and hated-based political philosophical disagreement, sexism, racism, homophobia, anti immigrant bias, Islamophobia, etc). Racist scumfucks get to vote like anyone else. The Obamacare rate increases 2 weeks before the election hurt us too.

We also lost (I think THIS is a the biggest reason) via systemic purging of millions of potential voters due to Crosscheck and other voter suppression schemes. WE failed to stand up to that purging, but it was done under the letter of the prevailing law. THIS fucked up shit needs to be addressed and SOON.

We lost due to so many factors that are really into the murky grey area, such as Comey, Russian influence at multiple levels of manipulation, Wikileaks drops, especially the ones regarding Clinton Inc., The DNC hacks, and Podesta hacks.

Finally we may have lost some states due to outright votes being switched, cancelled, disappeared, etc. THAT is illegal, THAT is the ONE thing that could possible be used to legitimately void the entire election. BUT, like Skinner says above, the evidence is NOT compelling atm, and the Clinton campaign and the DNC have not said a word about it.


This Election literally broke against us and against human rights and dignity on EVERY level, both legit and non-legit. We will feel the bitter sting, but cut a thousand different ways, lives ruined, progress halted for decades, the entire world further destabilised, the climate further ruined, etc etc. I share all of your frustration and rage, but I just don't see a way out via voiding the EC as (A) every happening, and (B) if it were to occur, ending in nothing but Civil War, or a possible military coup, and death and a dissolution of the country and so many systemic ties that bind at a multiplicity of levels, if not the outright breakup of it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

62. Plus, the House can't vote on any other Republican

If the election goes to the House, it will only be Clinton v. Trump, unless a Democratic elector votes for someone else and that vote is allowed to stand.

[treestar]

59. We are irresponsible not to have abolished it long ago.

What is likely to cause civil war is a system where the popular loser still gets to take office.

[Grey Lemercier]

60. actually, Im not in favour of doing away with it, there's a simple (but almost as hard to get done)

way to sort it. Abolition will never occur, as even if the constitutional amendment were passed in the Congress, all it takes is 14 states (the smaller ones, of course) to block it. They have way more than 14 who oppose it.

BUT there is a fix, and it just doesn't fix the electoral college. If fixes the House too.

Expand the House to 1001. That would also Expand the EC to 1106 (100 for senators, 1001 for House, plus 5 for DC). It doesnt take a Constitutional Amendment either, just an Act of Congress (overturning a 1929 Act).

Its been stuck at 435 (with 2 temp added for AK and HI for a couple years, removed in 1962) SINCE 1913!


The population then was 97 million. Now is 325 million. The average rep has almost 750,000 people in his/her district.

Because the EC is based (in the constitution) off number of congress people, increasing the House also increases the EC.

THEN you can more fairly split up those 1106 EV's and those 1001 House seats. Right now, a Wyoming electoral vote is worth 3.7 times MORE than a California vote.


Expanding the House also, of course allow for a more representational distribution for the states as well, at HOUSE government levels. California, and the other large states get FUCKED right now in very way.

The main barrier to this will be getting House members to dilute their power, PLUS Rethugs to go along, as they KNOW thery have all the benefits to the current system


Read this for more info. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The 1001 is just my own number, you could do it so many different ways (such as the much less impactful (but still better than nothing) Wyoming Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule , or double it, plus one (has to be odd number to avoid ties)

[treestar]

63. I think each person's vote should be treated equal

Small states don't have a reason to oppose it any more. States are not nearly as big in people's lives as they were back when they had been colonies. One person, one vote.

The Senate is bad enough, especially with the filibuster, which by the way, I hope the Dems use on everything, They are more justified than the Rs were, knowing the president was not picked by the majority.

[liberal N proud]

51. As much as I hope this will play out in favor of the nation, I fear it will not

I will sign any petition calling for them to do their job and reject Trump but I will not be sinking my heart into it.

[Silent3]

55. Aren't electors generally chosen because they're staunch supporters of their candidate?

The only reason I can see an Trump elector bailing on Trump is if they strongly disapproved of things revealed since election day -- going soft on building "the wall" now, making a number of appointments and creating lots of conflicts of interest that certainly don't look like "draining the swamp" so much as building a new Trump-friendly swamp, paying out $25 million in the Trump University fraud case, more unsavory Putin connections, etc.

Given how much shit your average Trump supporter has been shown time and time again to be willing to swallow, however, it's hard to imagine anywhere near enough switching their vote. And if they did switch, it probably wouldn't be to Clinton, which would just throw the election to the House to decide.

Oh, it's a lovely dream Clinton could win the Electoral College vote, and a part of me clings to that hope, but I know it's a very small hope.

[briv1016]

57. If this where to actually happen, we would be looking at another civil war.

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. But let's be clear on what we're actually talking about.

[treestar]

58. It should be abolished

Are we the only country in history where the popular loser ac n take the office ?