Can, or should the Electoral College stop Trump from being President?

[righteousdude2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/o...lege-members-can-vote-against-trump.html?_r=0

Can or should the Electoral College make Hillary President? Some believe the revolt with the ranks of se-Lectoral College may just use their vote to push Trump under the number needed to win, and I would like to pick your brains as to the legality as well as the morality of not voting according to the will of the people who have used this institution to decide who would be president since the nation was founded!

Is this legal, to vote your conscince versus the established practice of this group? Let's talk! Can it happen? Should it happen? What will a rogue vote mean to thecollege and the country? And what laws or rules exist to keep this from happening, and should desenters be punished?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Yes, itis legal. The Electoral College voters are not bound by law to vote for a particular person. There are a few states where a fine can be imposed. My understanding is that Washington State can fine such a person $1000.00.

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...illary-clinton-instead-donald-trump/93951818/

According to FairVote, there have been 157 “faithless electors” in the history of the U.S. But even that figure is deceptively high. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the Electoral College cast its votes. In all, the group states, “82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector.” None has affected the outcome of a presidential election.

The most recent example occurred in 2004 when an anonymous elector from Minnesota, pledged to vote for Democrat John Kerry, cast a presidential vote instead for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, some believe by mistake. In 2000, a Democratic elector from the District of Columbia declined to cast her vote “to protest the lack of congressional representation for Washington, DC,” FairVote notes.

“Presidential Electors are theoretically free to vote as their consciences dictate, something the founders anticipated Electors would indeed do under Hamilton’s Electoral College invention,” Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, told us via email.

 

[righteousdude2]

Yes, itis legal. The Electoral College voters are not bound by law to vote for a particular person. There are a few states where a fine can be imposed. My understanding is that Washington State can fine such a person $1000.00.

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...illary-clinton-instead-donald-trump/93951818/

According to FairVote, there have been 157 “faithless electors” in the history of the U.S. But even that figure is deceptively high. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the Electoral College cast its votes. In all, the group states, “82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector.” None has affected the outcome of a presidential election.

The most recent example occurred in 2004 when an anonymous elector from Minnesota, pledged to vote for Democrat John Kerry, cast a presidential vote instead for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, some believe by mistake. In 2000, a Democratic elector from the District of Columbia declined to cast her vote “to protest the lack of congressional representation for Washington, DC,” FairVote notes.

“Presidential Electors are theoretically free to vote as their consciences dictate, something the founders anticipated Electors would indeed do under Hamilton’s Electoral College invention,” Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, told us via email.

Thanks ctb, for an informational response. Shalom!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, itis legal. The Electoral College voters are not bound by law to vote for a particular person. There are a few states where a fine can be imposed. My understanding is that Washington State can fine such a person $1000.00.

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...illary-clinton-instead-donald-trump/93951818/

According to FairVote, there have been 157 “faithless electors” in the history of the U.S. But even that figure is deceptively high. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the Electoral College cast its votes. In all, the group states, “82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector.” None has affected the outcome of a presidential election.

The most recent example occurred in 2004 when an anonymous elector from Minnesota, pledged to vote for Democrat John Kerry, cast a presidential vote instead for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, some believe by mistake. In 2000, a Democratic elector from the District of Columbia declined to cast her vote “to protest the lack of congressional representation for Washington, DC,” FairVote notes.

“Presidential Electors are theoretically free to vote as their consciences dictate, something the founders anticipated Electors would indeed do under Hamilton’s Electoral College invention,” Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, told us via email.

IF that was the case, then we should have not electde PresidentObama again, as MANY of us had real agenda/policy isues with him!

 

[Salty]

Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have passed laws to punish faithless electors, although none have ever been enforced. Many constitutional scholars claim that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.[56] In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343U.S.214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge.

From Wiki

 

[InTheLight]

Yes.
No.

 

[StefanM]

I think the EC is massively flawed, but we don't need any additional circus acts.

Under the system we have, Trump won, period.

To deny him the Presidency at this point in time would result in a level of backlash we haven't seen in a long time.

I didn't support Trump, and I don't like the fact that he is going to be President. Even so, he won, and whether it is legal to get around that fact doesn't really matter. Even if we CAN do it, we SHOULDN'T do it.

 

[blessedwife318]

Yes they Can vote for whomever they want, but No they should not vote against Trump. He won the EC fair and square (even if Trump himself tried to discredit his win ironically)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes they Can vote for whomever they want, but No they should not vote against Trump. He won the EC fair and square (even if Trump himself tried to discredit his win ironically)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Would the Dems had maked such a outcry if Russia was said to have elected President Obama?

 

[Revmitchell]

According to Clinton if one does not accept the election results they are a threat to democracy.

 

[blessedwife318]

Would the Dems had maked such a outcry if Russia was said to have elected President Obama?

As a #nevertrumper I even think the Russia angle is a ridiculous accusation. But I also believe that if the shoe was on the other foot the Republican would be just as outraged if their was the slightest suggestion that Foreign powers helped elect a democrat. If 2016 has shown anything is is how tribal both sides are and will defend their tribe of an action while attacking the other for the same action. Makes me glad to not be in either major party as the hypocrisy.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Judith]

Yes they can, but no they should not.

 

[rsr]

Yes, electors may vote for whom they will. Practically speaking, anti-Trump electors would not vote for Hillary. If enough declined to vote for Trump it would throw the election to the House of Representatives, where Trump would be elected because the vote is by state delegation; Republicans are in the majority in 30 delegations, and it's unlikely they would vote for Hillary, so Trump wins again. Faithless electors may vote as they will, but it is an exercise in futility unless they are willing to vote for Hillary, which is not in the cards.

 

[TCassidy]

About 60% of the states make it a crime for an elector to not vote for the person the state voted for. It has yet to be adjudicated so we really don't know if the electoral votes would count or not or what the punishment would be.

However, electors are elected by their political parties. Republicans elect Republican electors and Democrats elect Democrat electors. Only the electors whose party won the state get to vote (with a couple of very small and meaningless exceptions).

So, it is stupid to think that electors, who are always party faithfuls, would vote against their own party.

And even if enough Republican electors voted against Trump, it would take 40 electors to keep Trump from having a majority and if only one if them voted for a 3rd party candidate the election would be decided by the House of Representatives, which is, of course, controlled by the Republican party.

The whole "faithless electors" nonsense is just that. Left wing hype by people who have no respect for our Constitution, our way of government, and our electoral system who are pouting because they did not get their own way. And that is being aided and abetted by the news media who is milking the issue like a cash cow.

It ain't gonna happen, folks. It is a contrived controversy designed to up the ratings of the main stream media and to give the left an outlet for their temper tantrum because they didn't get their own way.

 

[Salty]

...However, electors are elected by their political parties. Republicans elect Republican electors and Democrats elect Democrat electors. Only the electors whose party won the state get to vote (with a couple of very small and meaningless exceptions). ....

Unless in an extremely close election Neb and Maine.......

 

[TCassidy]

Unless in an extremely close election Neb and Maine.......

Both of them already split.

 

[HankD]

It's a ruse, The liberal progressives and the marxist press supposedly want the EC victory invalidated because Trump is not qualified to be president and Hillary won the popular vote.

But their desperate attempts show that they really do not want what Trump is offering - namely a conservative SCOTUS to ward off socialism/marxism and constitutional lawlessness to achieve that end result (IMO of course).

How blind must they think the irredeemable deplorables who cling to their guns and bibles are?
Who's to blame (according to them) for the apparent Trump/Pence victory?

Fox News did it.
Comey did it.
Fake News did it
The Rust Belt used defective voting machines that's why.
The Russians hacked the voting machines that's why.
The Rust Belt counts were wrong and needed to be recounted that's why.
The Russians hacked the DNC email that's why.

Wait! how about their favorite? - Bush did it!

Real answer Hillary and her extra-curricular activities did it.

So there is no reason to side step the Electoral College vote.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

It's a ruse, The liberal progressives and the marxist press supposedly want the EC victory invalidated because Trump is not qualified to be president and Hillary won the popular vote.

But their desperate attempts show that they really do not want what Trump is offering - namely a conservative SCOTUS to ward off socialism/marxism and constitutional lawlessness to achieve that end result (IMO of course).

How blind must they think the irredeemable deplorables who cling to their guns and bibles are?
Who's to blame (according to them) for the apparent Trump/Pence victory?

Fox News did it.
Comey did it.
Fake News did it
The Rust Belt used defective voting machines that's why.
The Russians hacked the voting machines that's why.
The Rust Belt counts were wrong and needed to be recounted that's why.
The Russians hacked the DNC email that's why.

Wait! how about their favorite? - Bush did it!

Real answer Hillary and her extra-curricular activities did it.

So there is no reason to side step the Electoral College vote.

HankD

There is no valid reason now, as no reported that source leak was not Russia, but tjhose in DNC itself!

 

[Crabtownboy]

IF that was the case, then we should have not electde PresidentObama again, as MANY of us had real agenda/policy isues with him!

Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. So, yes he won fair and square regardless of whether you like him or not.

Trump did not win the popular vote. No mandate for him from the majority of people who voted.

But your answer has nothing to do with the legality of an electoral college voter changing his vote.

 

[Don]

In the state of Illinois, the population density of Chicago and its suburbs far outweighs basically the rest of the state. Chicago is primarily democrat; so Illinois elections, as a generality, tend to favor democrats. The "voice" of the rest of the state is left unheard; and thus, issues that affect the less densely populated areas tend to be ignored.

I believe there's a valid reason our forefathers implemented the electoral college.