Posted on 11/30/2016 3:19:03 PM PST by Kaslin
With the Hillary/Stein swing-state recount effort likely going nowhere, some Democrats are still pinning their hopes of preventing Trump from becoming president on persuading enough electors to violate their commitments and become so-called faithless electors. The immediate problem with this approach is that many states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate whose party won the state. But as Politico reports, Democrats are gearing up to send a group of lawyers out to defend anyone who chooses to challenge those laws:
Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.
Several sources involved with the legal planning also confirmed that they’re preparing to roll out a coalition of lawyers prepared to defend, pro bono, any electors who vote in opposition to their party’s candidate on Dec. 19, when the Electoral College meets to cast the official vote for president.
Those efforts are parallel to a drive by at least eight Democratic electors in Colorado and Washington state who are lobbying their GOP counterparts to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to oppose Trump when it comes time to cast their votes.
With Trump having won 307 electoral votes, 37 faithless electors are needed to change the results of the election. Some of the electors would almost certainly come from states where it would be against the law for an elector to change his or her vote. However, if there are lawyers offering to represent you it’s possible a few more electors might consider a last minute shift. That would be followed by a court battle which could almost certainly drag on past inauguration day.
But in addition to their long-shot but short-term goal of stopping Trump, the effort also has a longer-term goal: convincing more people to dump the electoral college entirely. The thinking is that if it’s no longer illegal for electors to change their votes, Americans will begin to question what the point of the whole exercise is anyway. Why not remove the electors entirely? At least that’s what the people behind this movement hope will happen.
Democrats have a few problems they probably aren’t going to overcome. First, with regard to the short-term goal, persuading people to abandon their commitments doesn’t go well when the persuasion involves threats of violence, constant harassment and verbal abuse. If anything, that sort of behavior is going to cause Republican electors to dig in their heels.
As for the longer term goal, changing state laws is going to be difficult when Democrats are in control of so few state legislatures. As Politico notes, the GOP is actually in a position in many states to push this debate in the other direction:
“It could be the autonomy of electors is going to come under very close scrutiny,” said Robert Alexander, an Electoral College expert from Ohio Northern University.
George Edwards, a Texas A&M professor and prominent Electoral College critic, said eliminating electors altogether and making electoral votes simply automatic would be another option Republicans might consider.
Like the recount effort and the bill to abolish the electoral college with a constitutional amendment, this Democratic effort probably won’t amount to much.
Some jerk lawyers advised the hapless Democrats to do this so they could make a fortune in hourly fees. It will go nowhere. Trump is the next President, and he will get 306 electoral votes.
Let’s play a little game: How many here really believe Hillary would take the office under those circumstances? There would be a revolution.
Imagine the outcry from the Dems and libs doing this if Trump had lost and was attempting the same stunts.
Everyone involved this this election interference should be arrested.
Will the dems so nobly defend any hillary elector that instead votes Trump? I pay money for that one.
Play fair or Be in the penalty box.
I got killed for saying so, but even Hillary has the sense not to do that. It would lead to total chaos and disruption of the entire country if she so much as tried. Will not happen.
I could see a scenario in which Kaine (or even Hillary) could be voted vice-president by the Senate. If they diminish Trumps electoral votes to below 270 by getting enough electors to turn and delay a state or two from sending their electors then the President would be chosen by the House and the VP by the Senate. The House would certainly choose Trump but I’m not confident the Senate would choose Pence.
Why would Hillary mind total chaos and the disruption of the country?
That said, I agree this will go nowhere. Electors are party faithful. And the dems are, as always, going about this in the worst way possible. Threats and verbal abuse don’t exactly win people over.
Could you elaborate please? I don’t have access to Lexis Nexis.
They are about as likely to spend money “protecting the integrity” of the vote in New Hampshire, which at 2,000 difference was far closer than Michigan (10,704), Wisconsin (22,000+) or Pennsylvania (70,658).
“President Trump? You mean the guy who was elected in a controversial, disputed race and actually lost the popular vote?”
That’s what all this nonsense is about: getting the uninformed masses to accept those ideas for the next four years.
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.