Posted on 12/08/2016 1:57:43 PM PST by NYer
Just like that – these “electors,” who were elected to a job where they knew the rules, now want to change the rules – because the candidate they personally preferred didn’t win. WAAAAAHHHH! I didn’t get my way, so we have to change the rules.
Essentially, they’re asking to make irrelevant the votes of more than half the voters in their states – because they’re unhappy.
If electors are just going to vote their personal preference, then why even hold a national vote?
The Washington Times reports – Two members of the Electoral College pledged to support Hillary Clinton have filed a lawsuit intended to undo the presidential-election victory of Donald Trump.
Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, two electors in Colorado, filed their lawsuit in federal court Tuesday challenging the validity of state laws requiring members of the Electoral College to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their states, according to the Denver Post.
The two are casting themselves as “moral electors” who want to “vote their conscience and do their constitutional duty as intended by the framers,” said attorney Jason Wesoky.
Should they win their long-shot lawsuit, it will have no effect in Colorado — Mrs. Clinton won the state and its nine Electoral College votes. But similar laws in other states that voted for Mr. Trump would also be invalid, meaning all 538 members of the Electoral College could vote for whomever they wished — at least potentially undoing the result of the election.
Read More: http://www.washingtontimes.com/
That would be the next step, yes.
Your confusion stems from your belief that this has to do with the 2016 election. It has to do with weakening the link between statewide presidential elections and the Electoral College. Some people may claim this is an attack on the Electoral College itself, but I wouldn't go that far. Consider that the goal of this lawsuit is bigger than the Clinton/Trump election and it will make more sense.
Somebody’s stirring the pot
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-rogues-trump-clinton-232195
snip
Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan
At least eight Democratic electors are promising to defect from Clinton and support a
Republican alternative to Trump.
While Trump’s lawyers have been working to stymie the recounts, his campaign has
paid little attention to the Electoral College initiative. The same is true of the
Clinton camp. Clinton would need all three recounts to overturn the Election Day
results to get to 270 electoral votes — an extremely unlikely scenario.
Recounts aside, there’s little incentive for the Clinton camp to become involved with
the anti-Trump effort because it can result only in detracting from her electoral vote total. The only reason to engage at all would be to
support an effort to deny Trump an Electoral College majority.
The Democratic electors have already revealed that they’re close to a consensus pick for
whom they will vote: Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
end snip
Yes, I understand that, but it won’t have any bearing on Trump getting elected.
I see the problem and the confusion.
Clarity is not your strong suit, and...
I strongly suspect that your definition of "big government" is not the same as for the rest of us.
That discussion could prove educational.
Members of the Electoral College are not representatives. They are temporary Constitutional officers, chosen by their State Legislatures, and voters have nothing to do with them - UNLESS their State Legislature has specified voting as the method by which they are appointed.
They are representatives of the voters and nothing more.
Yes that is true but what if the Clinton electors decided to vote for Trump?
So two electors from Colorado could change the electoral process for the entire country? I think that Congress would have something to say about that.
The general population didn’t vote for any of these Electors. They were elected by party hacks at the states’ Party conventions. Nobody vetted these people or chose them for their own decision-making skills, because they promised to vote as the general election voters instructed.
Claiming that they have a “duty” to substitute their own judgement for that of the voters is like somebody getting an honorary degree from a university and then claiming they are a graduate of that school.
Why bother campaigning and trying to win over the general population if all that matters is winning/bribing/pressuring/blackmailing 270 people ? I would not put it past the Clinton/Soros cartel to kidnap family members and threaten to kill them unless the electors voted their “conscience” in favor of Clinton. The only thing protecting these peoples’ families IMHO is the fact that they are NOT free to vote however they like.
No. Being an Elector should be an honorary position, to DO the will of the voters, not to DELIBERATE and substitute their own judgement for the will of the voters.
These electors don’t know what they are asking for. If they were unbound, they would become targets for blackmail and bribery or even kidnapping of family members to coerce their votes.
Clinton/Soros would even now be figuring out which 40 republican electors were most vulnerable to these tactics to create an “uprising of conscience” at the Dec 19th meeting. The only thing protecting their families is that they are not free to vote as they “wish”. Their families would be held hostage until after inauguration, and then the elector himself would have a tragic accident along with the family he thought he was saving. The MSM would cover-up and poo-poo any “conspiracy” theories about the suspicious deaths.
It would also become common practice to have sleeper agents pretend to be republicans so they could get elector slots years down the road.
If only that were true. Unfortunately we still have PLENTY of them here in CA, so they didn’t ALL leave.
Can’t believe how uninformed many people in this thread are. Colorado was won by Clinton. They never were going to vote for Trump anyhow as the Trump slate of electors lost in that state. It is not possible for Trump to lose any of his 306 EVs in Colorado!
So we should just round up all the electors and their families and acquaintances a week before election day and keep them under lock and key until they vote at the electoral college ?
Because if it comes down only needing to bribe, blackmail, threaten or kidnap the families of 40 people, that is well within the means of the Clinton/Soros crime family. Turn the votes of 40 electors and Clinton steals the election and those 40 people and their families disappear afterwards.
If there were more than two viable parties, where an election resulted in three or four candidates with under 30% of the vote, the electoral college would still serve a purpose. It could become a deliberative body until a candidate emerged with 270 votes, like the Party conventions.
But ... if that was the intent, why does the House of Representative get to choose the POTUS if no candidate reaches 270 ? Clearly, the Electoral College was NOT intended to be a deliberative body. It makes me think these “Hamilton” electors’ logic is specious.
Hamilton fans also act like it is illegal to disagree with him. Which many of his compatriots did.
The article says this is going to federal court, meaning they want a ruling that overturns ALL binding laws everywhere.
This isn't about changing votes in Colorado; it's about clearing the way for Trump electors in other states to join them in voting for Clinton.
-PJ
You bring it up and then complain that we are discussing it?
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.