Posted on 12/18/2016 10:32:34 AM PST by Kaslin
John Sexton was just writing yesterday about ongoing harassment of and threats to the electors in advance of tomorrow’s vote, but the questions which have come up this cycle are going to linger well into the future. At this point it seems to me as if there’s almost zero chance of a 100% clean vote with all of the electors casting ballots reflecting the will of the voters in their respective states. But at the same time, the number of faithless electors should (hopefully) be too low to really change anything.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the process, Jamie Dupree provides a good rundown of how the vote actually takes place. The electors don’t all get together in one huge hall. They cast their votes at various times in their home states as directed by state law. We’ll know some of the results tomorrow, while others won’t be released until later. None of them are “official” until certified by a Joint Session of Congress on January 6th.
So will any of them “go rogue” on us? Dupree doesn’t see it as likely.
What if some electors change their votes on Monday?
Just like when you fork over a few bucks to play the lottery, you have a slight chance to win; therefore, there is a slight chance that the electors could screw with things and deny Donald Trump the 270 votes needed to be the President. Looking back, there are individual examples through the years of what are labeled “faithless electors,” who decide to vote for someone else. In 1836, the 23 electors from Virginia didn’t vote for Vice Presidential candidate Richard M. Johnson; ultimately, the Senate approved him as Vice President anyway. So yes, it could happen. But I’m not sure I would bet on a change in the outcome.
Even if everything goes off relatively smoothly tomorrow, the gauntlet has been thrown down in terms of whether or not the electors can or should be able to overturn an election. The details of how it all works on paper are somewhat convoluted and even the courts are struggling with the question. First of all, more than half the states have penalties in place for faithless electors, but 21 states don’t require them to vote in accordance with the outcome of the election. The Constitution doesn’t say they have to, but states can and do add on additional requirements forcing them to take an oath and honor the results. (See Ray v. Blair for more on that decision.)
That precedent stands in contrast to a court decision on Friday night in Colorado, where three judges at least hinted that it may not be allowable to remove a faithless elector once the voting has started and replace them with someone who will uphold their oath. (Politico)
A U.S. Appeals Court appears to have left open a narrow path for more members of the Electoral College to ditch Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
In a footnote appended to an order issued late Friday in a Colorado lawsuit, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals suggested state officials may be constitutionally barred from removing electors once they’ve started voting.
In their order, the judges said any attempt by Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams to remove electors “after voting has begun” would be “unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment.”
While there have been some minor skirmishes over individual electors over the years (and a seriously large one in 1836) we haven’t generally politicized the Electoral College all that much. But in the 21st century, everything is up for grabs because politics is now generally accepted as being a bloodsport. Many of our government institutions have operated over the centuries essentially on the honor system, largely because the Founders assumed that those in positions of power would likely be unwilling to do anything too untoward. Well, they never saw 2016 coming, obviously.
We may be forced to fix this situation, but I’m not exactly sure how. You can forget talk of a constitutional amendment either eliminating the Electoral College and going to a popular vote model or creating unbreakable mandates for how the electors must vote. Even if the will existed to do either of those things it would take decades to gather sufficient support and push a new amendment through the process. But the states already have it in their power to make modifications to the system. (We can again refer to the states which mandate an oath from electors or the ones which split their electoral votes, like Maine and Nebraska.) Could all of the states get something relatively uniform on the books along these lines? Or even more drastically, could a federal law impose some sort of consistent rule? (That one is troubling to even type out.)
I remain unsure, but this conditions on the ground are getting ugly. The stage has been set for some sort of sore loser, electoral college revolt the next time enough people are angry about the outcome of an election. Even if it’s not happening this year, you can easily imagine it taking place in your lifetime. We’d be wise to figure out how to patch this system up before the dam breaks entirely.
I’m sick about hearing about these electors having some sacred duty to look at the candidates suitability for office. They’re nothing but party hacks being rewarded for good service to their party. Look at that loser from Texas, it’s not like they’re picked for honesty, integrity or anything. In fact, before this election, has anyone known the name of any elector. The states should allow the removal of an elector for any purpose the winning party chooses, and the state legislature should have the ability to remove an elector during the college if they don’t vote by the law.
Wrong. There is no Constitutional requirement that Electors vote any certain way. States can and some do have laws binding them to voting as the populace of the state has voted but they can change their votes if they are willing to accept the legal consequences. The federal government and the federal courts have no jurisdiction here. If an Elector seems likely to vote contrary to his instructions his state legislature can replace him up to the last moment. There is no requirement that there be a popular vote for President. Each state legislature is tasked with appointing a slate of Electors to the number of Congressional Representatives and Senators representing that state. The Legislature decides how those Electors are to be chosen. The power to choose Constitutionally mandated Electors resides in the States and mixing in the Federal Government is a further centralization and a further diminution of the States.
They, the people, have no control of how the electors are to vote. Their influence is in choosing Electors who are of like mind with themselves who will then use their best judgment to vote for a Candidate. The Founders did not envision the President to be chosen by popular vote. The task of selecting the President is given in the Constitution to the Legislatures. The legislatures have all chosen to make their choice by allowing the citizenry to vote for the electors instead of choosing them in the legislature. Choosing the President was envisioned as a function of the Sovereign States, not of the general citizenry and certainly not of the many foreigners who take part in our presidential elections.
The electors were NOT supposed to be the “final voice of the people. The state legislatures were assigned the responsibility of choosing Electors. The legislatures have chosen to allow the citizenry to vote for Electors but it is the State legislatures who Constitutionally choose the Electors. Once long ago the Founders set up a system of Federated Sovereign States, not a mass democracy.
I guess I meant the last bastion against angry mob.
Exactly
Each state should have laws that the electors have to vote the way their state did. At least that way no one could claim electors have the legal right to ignore the election and vote however they care, as so many on the left are doing now.
It’s easy get rid of scum sucking America hating communist democrats who have destroyed every traditional institution in the country
They protect the Republic from the tyranny of California, Illinois, New York and majority rule.
No they don't, the constitutional allocation of the electoral college votes does that. The electors are no longer necessary as the states could just certify who won their electoral votes at the same time they certify the popular vote. No reason to have a bunch of individuals going through the motion of casting electoral votes that have already been determined by the voters in each state.
Listing state by state of the Electoral College Electors
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3506042/posts
The legislatures can swap out electors right up to the vote. Once the vote is taken, though, that’s it.
I mistook you point. The actual formality of the gathering to vote weeks after the election is indeed un-necessary. The electoral system is absolutely necessary.
Nonetheless, the electors will continue to meet in their respective capital cities every four years to cast their electoral votes.
It will require a constitutional amendment to eliminate the practice.
And, somehow, I don't think that's gonna happen...
Which is why I opened my remarks with this is comment #14.
I guess it would take a constitutional amendment, but I think we should just eliminate the electors from the presidential general election process.
It might be possible to eliminate the electors since, if one takes a close look at it, they serve no purpose. As I read that section of the constitution, the electors only vote once and if that one vote does not choose the president and VP, it immediately goes to the House.
But serving no real purpose might make it more trouble than it is worth to try and change it, unless at some point the electors did defy, or almost defy the will of the voters. It was just a lot of whining and moaning from the sore losers this year that had no real support.
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.