should that be legally not elgally?
This is the same stuff we were talking about regarding Bush vs Gore. Some were afraid electors would vote for Gore even though they were “bound” to vote for Bush.
Not a one of them broke ranks.
Get real.
This is "Al Gore 2000" stuff.
Indeed.
He’s not even the President[Elect].
It will be amazing to see this in play when Obama is found ineligible to hold office by the Supreme Court. I have stated that I believe this is Hillary’s thermo-nuclear gambit, that she is counting on the electoral college to select her when Change Boy is stripped of his hypnotic super-powers by virtue of being an Indonesian Kenyan (or vice versa, who cares) fraud.
BUT—THAT WOULD BE ILELGAL!
Since these electors were ones supporting the candidate why in the world would they jump ship and not vote for him?... Wishful thinking won’t change reality.
This would be the time for the electors to tell Obama simply that they cannot cast their votes for him unless he fully identifies himself to their satisfaction.
But that would require character and a sense of justice of the electors, and that may be asking too much of them.
I think this elector system is a nice little legal fiction in this date and age. I wish it weren’t so, but despite the statements to the contrary on this forum, none of us voted for electors on the ballot. We don’t even know or care who they are.
The response that quickly came to mind as I read this was a cartoon I saw many years ago called “The Last Great Act of Defiance”. It was a huge hawk swooping down with claws outstretched toward a little mouse facing it and giving the hawk the finger.
Any elector who would dare dis “that one” would be facing a fate worse than the mouse.
Electors are almost always committed party activists and office holders or big supporters of the candidate. If they weren’t considered reliable, they wouldn’t have been put on the slate.
I doubt few if any will renege on their pledges to vote for Obama.
This is what they said before the Democratic convention, too, and Obama got way MORE electors than he was supposed to. Even states Hillary had solidly won were block-voting for Obama, which made her “magnanimous” decision to urge all the remaining states to vote for Obama seem more like a CYA.
I imagine the same will happen again.
One note: Hillary only needs to have one Elector in the country switch over for her: as long as she makes the “top 3” list, the House can consider her along with McCain if there is a dis-qualification before the joint session in January.
My bet is that the DNC winks and allows one or two “protest” votes for Hillary to make sure they still have a horse in the race against McCain (and by corollary, if she does get 1 or 2 votes on 15 Dec., you can be sure there is a real problem).
If a disqualification happens after the joint session, Biden gets promoted to President-Elect, so the DNC only needs Hillary on the top 3 list if there is a blow-up before or during the joint session.
This post is all wrong. There are legally required to vote Obama in States that are McCain States (Alaska). You also have States not required to vote Obama, that should read not required to vote McCain (Idaho).
question? Once it is proven that Obama is ineligible....would it make sense to assume that all his decisions, choices, etc. would be null and void due to fraud. Including his VP pic? Would this not make Biden ineligible for VP?