Replies

On the "faithless electors": You have heard scare-mongering stories of electors who won't vote for Trump: These are from STATES CANKLES WON. It makes no difference. In most states, it's a crime not to vote for the winner, and in all states electors are the creme de la creme of rabid Trump supporters. Highly unlikely any of them will flip. But again, the state legislature---as I understand it---sends in the electoral delegation and would have final say. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

In many ways I guess I am a purist. The Constitution assigns to each state the ability to “appoint” one Elector for each senator, and one Elector for each Congressman, to which it is entitled. It says nothing at all about popular election. It is traditional that all a state’s electors are selected by a statewide ballot. With the exception of Nebraska and Maine, which select only two Electors statewide, and one additionally within each congressional district. The existence of a functioning Nebraska Plan state (or two) dramatizes that the state legislatures do in fact control the way the Electors are selected.
There is one quibble, in that as I understand it if a state legislature acts to name Electors outside the mechanism of popular election, the House would reserve the right to second guess. But I suppose that since the Republicans control the House that should not constitute a serious problem.
Say what you will about popular election, the Electors are clearly a mechanism which could be robust in unforeseeable circumstances. What if a winning presidential candidate dies before the Electors meet? Even, what if both president and vice president die? The Electors might be able to agree to adapt to such circumstance - and at least present the House with a second and a third place candidate to choose from other than the (surviving) second place finisher.
But when we hear about a “faithless Elector” who is nineteen years old trying to make that sort of decision, there is something wrong with the picture. What, the POTUS has to be at least 35 - and the kid who elects him/her is not even 20? To be responsible for that sort of decision you ought to have a few gray hairs - the age requirement should be at least 35, and I would argue 45 yo. IMHO each state should consider that issue for itself.
I have a certain respect for a movement in the losing side to try, as these “faithless” electors are doing, to present the winners with an attractive counter offer. Propose a fusion candidate. Reasonable.
But I’m glad Trump won, and that it is all moot. Trump has hit the ground running already, demonstrating decisiveness and clarity and responsibility. The Carrier thing is IMHO irresponsible showmanship - but not so irresponsible that serious damage will be done. It is justifiable in that it enables Trump to mark POtUS as his territory, at a time when the Democrats are trying to undermine him. Time enough to smooth things out later, to the extent it is needed. It isn’t as if he were driving Republican small businesses under, as Obama did to auto dealers he didn’t like in ’09 . . .