Some electors look to undermine electoral college
Democratic electors are in revolt against Trump.
Click here for reuse options!At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.
The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.
Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they’re unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they’d likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.
But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
5 responses to Some electors look to undermine electoral college
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Suzanne McFly November 22nd, 2016 at 15:08
Even though it won’t lead to President Hillary in the end, every hit against his bow is a point for our side.
labman57 November 22nd, 2016 at 18:49
Debate over the modern-day validity of the Electoral College aside, the two most powerful players in the GOP’s strategic planning for state and national elections continue to be … Gerry Mander and Jim Crow II.
amongoose November 23rd, 2016 at 01:52
You realize if they succeed in denying 270 to any of the candidates the House of Representative make the decision.
Glen November 23rd, 2016 at 04:09
It says that in the article, and some argue that it puts Congress in a tough position…
… namely, that they have to officially endorse Trump.
Think about it – if Trump’s presidency ends up disastrous, Congress can go “well, you guys are the ones that voted for him, what can we say?”. But if the Electoral College passes that responsibility on to the House of Reps, then in the event of his presidency being disastrous, the fault falls on those who voted for him in Congress.
I, personally, don’t agree with the approach – I think just getting a few electors to go faithless to emphasise the untrustworthy nature of the Electoral College system, is a great idea, but it shouldn’t be even a glimmer of a chance of preventing a Trump presidency. That ship has sailed.
amongoose November 23rd, 2016 at 07:38
Like 1828, congress made the call. Backroom deals cost the popular vote winner, Andrew Jackson, the election. The result was 1832 landslide and repudiation of the republican-democrat party.
It led to a fracturing of support, and the birth of the Democratic party.
I would really like to see more than two choices, but, more than two strong parties would, odds are, permanently keep the election in the House.
Majority EC winner would be a possible solution if it came to that.