The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BlueK]

The electors, at least in most states, aren't free to do whatever they want. While the constitution doesn't compel them to vote in any given way, state laws and, in some circumstances, contracts with the political party that picked them as an elector control what they do. I suppose there might be a few free electors out there, unbound by state law or contract, but there's a better chance that Obama simply chooses not to vacate the office on inauguration day than more than a few electors decide to thwart the popular vote in their respective states.

Actually, they can vote for whoever they want. The federal government has no say in it and would record it as an official vote. There are 21 states that have a law like what you're talking about. Such states could then exercise whatever the prescribed penalty is for going rogue (at worst a fine), but that's all they could do. Naturally there would be political consequences for that individual.

[imanihonjin]

They wouldn't necessarily vote for Hillary either. In fact, it's unlikely they would do that even if they went rogue. There aren't enough votes for Hillary to win, so the democratic electors who would have nothing to lose could conceivably make a deal with only a few of the republican ones to vote for a different republican.

As far as legitimacy goes, that argument only works if you assume the the president is directly elected, which technically is not true. And in that case, Hillary actually got more of those votes so the logic of that should be that the electors ought to vote for her if they wanted to respect the popular vote. Or...you are actually saying the electoral college is just a mathematical formula applied to the states' vote. But the problem with that is that the Founders clearly didn't intend for the electoral college vote to be a mere formality or a footnote as it has become. Not saying this is what would be best for the country. But it would be something the Constitution would have no problem with.

If the electors don't vote the way their states voted you deligitimize the election results. It wouldn't go over well. I get what you are saying from a constitutional perspective, but I am speaking from a practical perspective.

[BlueK]

If the electors don't vote the way their states voted you deligitimize the election results. It wouldn't go over well. I get what you are saying from a constitutional perspective, but I am speaking from a practical perspective.

I get what you are saying from a practical perspective and I don't expect it to happen. But at the same time, the country probably could also use a good history and Constitutional lesson. The whole point of the EC was for there to be an additional layer of oversight because the Founders feared the election of exactly the kind of populist charlatan Trump is.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Actually, they can vote for whoever they want. The federal government has no say in it and would record it as an official vote. There are 21 states that have a law like what you're talking about. Such states could then exercise whatever the prescribed penalty is for going rogue (at worst a fine), but that's all they could do. Naturally there would be political consequences for that individual.

No 29 states have laws telling the electors what to do, if that loon from the Newsweek article is to be believed. Of the remaining 21 states, I'm sure many of the state parties have something in place to prevent some idiot from bucking the vote.

The bolded part is false, in Utah, at least, if an elector doesn't choose who the popular vote went for within the state, then the remaining electors can boot him out and pick someone else.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I get what you are saying from a practical perspective and I don't expect it to happen. But at the same time, the country probably could also use a good history and Constitutional lesson. The whole point of the EC was for there to be an additional layer of oversight because the Founders feared the election of exactly the kind of populist charlatan Trump is.

I'm sure the founders would also be enamored with Hillary Clinton and the fact that she and her husband are worth over $100 million largely due to handing out political favors. What a great lesson that would be.

[BlueK]

I'm sure the founders would also be enamored with Hillary Clinton and the fact that she and her husband are worth over $100 million largely due to handing out political favors. What a great lesson that would be.

My posts have nothing to do with Hillary. And it's far more likely the EC would go with someone totally different than Trump or Hillary if this actually happened. I hate the polarization in the country that makes everyone think that if you say something less than glowing about one side that it must mean you're "all in" on the party line for the other side.

[creekster]

My posts have nothing to do with Hillary. But it sounds like if the situation were reversed you might be all in favor of the EC doing something else. I hate the polarization in the country that makes everyone think that if you argue one side it must be that you're all in with the party line on the other side.

While I see your point it is disingenuous at best to say your comments about electors voting for someone other than trump have nothing to do with Hilary, given that she is the only real alternative to Trump in any electoral college revolt.

[beefytee]

Chelsea is a spiting image of Bill. She had the same puffy, droopy face.

I would buy that Castro was Justin Trudeau's father before I'd believe that Bill Clinton wasn't Chelsea's father.

http://magafeed.com/is-justin-trudea...-fidel-castro/

I don't know that any timeline lines up for it, but it's a pretty funny assertion.

[BlueK]

While I see your point it is disingenuous at best to say your comments about electors voting for someone other than trump have nothing to do with Hilary, given that she is the only real alternative to Trump in any electoral college revolt.

That is not true. I already explained this. The democratic electors since they aren't enough in number to elect Hillary would have nothing to lose by teaming up with only a few rogue Republican electors to pick someone totally different - another Republican they were more comfortable with.

[creekster]

That is not true. I already explained this. The democratic electors since they aren't enough in number to elect Hillary would have nothing to lose by teaming up with only a few rogue Republican electors to pick someone totally different - another Republican they were more comfortable with.

Who? You can say that, but as a practical matter there is no one else.

[Maximus]

Who? You can say that, but as a practical matter there is no one else.

mitt-romney-white-horse.jpg

[BlueK]

Who? You can say that, but as a practical matter there is no one else.

Well, then there won't even be an attempt to do it if the electors can't come up with a good option. No one said this was a likely scenario. I just thought it was an interesting hypothetical.

[creekster]

Well then, there won't even be an attempt to do it.

Like who? What republican (or dem or other) would entice ALL of the democratic electors and enough rogue Repubs to vote for him/her as a block in defiance of tradition, expectation, party rules and, in some cases, law? If you are not suggesting that any defections in the EC are to favor Hilary then you are only talking a difference that has no distinction.

[BlueK]

Like who? What republican (or dem or other) would entice ALL of the democratic electors and enough rogue Repubs to vote for him/her as a block in defiance of tradition, expectation, party rules and, in some cases, law? If you are not suggesting that any defections in the EC are to favor Hilary then you are only talking a difference that has no distinction.

You could also say that Trump is frightening enough that a lot of standard republicans would actually look good in comparison to a good number of those democrat electors and some rogue republican ones (Romney, Kasich, Jeb Bush, maybe even Mike Pence). It would also depend on Trump suddenly hiking up the craziness an additional level in the next couple of weeks, which is sadly not that far fetched. If for example he suddenly said he plans to nuke China as soon as he gets elected, then yeah, maybe that would be enough to scare the electors into getting on a conference call and picking someone else.

[imanihonjin]

You could also say that Trump is frightening enough that a lot of standard republicans would actually look good in comparison to a good number of those democrat electors and some rogue republican ones (Romney, Kasich, Jeb Bush, maybe even Mike Pence). It would also depend on Trump suddenly hiking up the craziness an additional level in the next couple of weeks, which is sadly not that far fetched. If for example he suddenly said he plans to nuke China as soon as he gets elected, then yeah, maybe that would be enough to scare the electors into getting on a conference call and picking someone else.

While I think that any elector changing their vote would be terrible for the stability of elections and the public's trust in elections going forward, I don't think the electors would necessarily need to get a majority of electors to coalesce around one candidate, they would simply need to prevent Trump from getting 270. If Hillary also failed to get 270 then I think, but don't know, that the House of Representatives gets to choose one of the top three electoral vote recipients.

So in essence in order for BlueK to get his wish that Trump not be the president and to not have Hillary chosen either, the electors in the Electoral College could scatter 40 or so of their votes on up to 40 different candidates and the House of Reps would be able to chose from Trump, Hillary and one other person who may have only received a handful of votes from a couple of rouge electors.

Seriously, think about what that would do to a voter's confidence in any election going forward if they selected some person who received 5-10 individuals' votes.