"Rod, here's your payback right back at 'cha!"
Posted on 12/11/2008 9:10:56 AM PST by News Junkie
hmmmmm.... good thought..
Or, if under bankruptcy, they are bought by an entity with less or different agenda.
If we’re going to ask Electors to break their commitments at all, we should go “off the board” and ask them to pick a conservative, not McCain. (Of course, I voted for McCain, but I’d rather have been voting for, say, Fred Thompson.)
No. Even if electors in those states were it’s not codified were to switch, it would be wrong. The riots would be justified in that scenario. The first administration that assumes office in that matter deserves the bloody coup that will surely follow.
The will of the people has to prevail, even when it it’s folly. That you’re only guarantee against tyranny. A Free Republic requires that we endure our Carter’s when the people err at the polls.
I think that the Founding Fathers probably thought that if something like the Blago - 0bama scandal happened that Electors would wisely choose someone else. Unfortunately, Electors these days would never switch unless forced.
People don’t care! That’s how far down our country has fallen. We all know that that’s not going to happen.
I generally agree with you. But, I think it will be much worse for the country WHEN a sitting President is arrested and indicted.
If the electors know that is a possibility, how can they cast a vote for him on Dec 15th?
Yes, he would be, beyond any doubt.
This is ridiculous. McCain lost. Lets move on. There would be riots in the streets if the vote was circumvented by electors ... and the rioters might not be wrong. It would be the equivalent of a legal coup, and it would destroy the conservative movement for the better part of a half-century.
SnakeDoc
It’s not over until the Electoral College votes.
Suppose Fitz had included Obama in the indictment. Would it be riduculous for the electors not to vote for him?
Isn’t it probable that Fitz will eventually indict Obama, based on the Rezko probe? Knowing this, how could an elector vote for him?
It’s exceptional, sure. But not ridiculous.
>> It’s not over until the Electoral College votes.
Technically true. But, by every legal standard in this country, Obama won and deserves a majority of electors.
>> Suppose Fitz had included Obama in the indictment. Would it be riduculous for the electors not to vote for him? Isn’t it probable that Fitz will eventually indict Obama, based on the Rezko probe? Knowing this, how could an elector vote for him?
Obama is legally elected. The electors haven’t voted, but he’s legally won a majority of electors. If the electorate wants Obama out (which I am not convinced that they do), impeachment is the only Constitutional option.
>> It’s exceptional, sure. But not ridiculous.
If we make such “exceptions” when we lose ... we’ll reap what we sow when we win.
SnakeDoc
If you had McCain you would just have the other side of the coin. It would not be any better and in some ways could be worse. At least with Obama we have a chance to start over and get some things right. Put McCain in there and we just get 4 more years of the SOS.
Speak for yourself. I wouldn’t go that far.
So, what is the point of having the Electoral College? If Obama is already legally elected, they can just save the plane fare and stay home.
The purpose of the electoral college is to allow States the capability of apportioning electors however they choose. Most states give their electors to the candidate that wins the majority of votes in the state. That’s the law.
SnakeDoc
The point of actual electors is now ceremonial. Most electors are already bound to either party or candidate by state law, so they couldn’t switch if they wanted to.
In either event, I would rather a sitting president be arrested, indicted and impeached (in any order) than the will of the voters subverted. You obviously have no idea what you’re asking.
Your only chance for McCain to be elected is for Obama and McCain to get all of the 538 Electors votes on December 12th, 2008. No mistakes as in 2004 when one elector somehow switched his Kerry President/Edwards Vice-President electors votes, which lead to Bush, then Kerry, then Edwards for electors votes for President.
When Obama wins the Electors votes, with only McCain in second place - then, and only then IF Obama were found to be Constitutionally ineligible for the Office of President before the counting of the Electors votes in January McCain could be elected President. The House would meet to elect a President from the top three candidates voted for by the Electors. The House votes by State (meaning the District of Columbia has no say) which means that 26 of the 50 States are needed to elect a President. Since only McCain would be available to vote for President, he would win as the House of Representatives cannot take up any other business until they have elected a President.
Interesting idea for a political thriller novel, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN...
dvwjr
Good explanation. I like it!
I agree, of course, not going to happen. I can dream though, can’t I?
“I believe in 21 States, the electors are legally required to vote for the candidate they are assigned to vote for.”
They are only allowed to vote among the ‘eligible candidates’;
which gives them some leeway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.