Or…the media could inform the voters of the history of the electoral college and spend the next three weeks getting them comfortable with the idea that the electors are tasked with verifying that the candidate is genuinely qualified to take on the roll.
Surprisingly, human beings are information processing machines! Strange, I know!
Sidebar question: What rules say “no link”? 
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=810599
I was respectful of a warning from moderator Bone in another thread that was closed, but I see others have now included the link to join the electoral rebels in other threads.
These rebels need close to eight percent (8%) of the electoral votes to accomplish their goals.
I think some exciting days are ahead for this election process is not over till the fat lady sings.
Reminds me of the old saying, “perception = reality”
No, I don’t agree it’s a surety, or even likely.
But that’s not the history of the electoral college. The history of the electoral college is that the electors are tasked with showing up, voting for their guy, and going home. They have never sat as a deliberative body to evaluate a candidate’s genuine qualifications.
That may indeed have been the precedent, but the independence of the Elector is as much a part of the system as the Electoral College itself.
True, great point for an attorney to defend anyone that crosses over the line.
Agreed that in almost all circumstances, the Electoral College voting is just a formality. The Electors will vote for who they are pledged to, minus perhaps a couple anomalies, and that will be that.
But these are not normal circumstances. This is Trump.
Just suppose, as a fun hypothetical, in the next few weeks Donald does or says something so egregious, so horrifying that it takes even his supporters aback. Like what, you ask? What ELSE could he possibly say that would be worse than anything he’s already said?
Well, suppose he publicly thanked Putin for helping him rig the election…or bragged about how smart he was to hire Russian hackers to help him change voting results in PA, MI or WI. Something that borders on treason, that could not be dismissed as “campaign rhetoric”, but could actually endanger the country. Something that a percentage of electors independently decide they simply cannot allow in a President, and switch their votes to Hillary. What then?
Not saying that this will happen, or that I want it to happen. Just wondering what the outcome would be. Besides protests and riots, that is. I would think a Supreme Court challenge would come first, but the Court is 4 to 4 with an empty seat and so…
An actual elector is now trying to persuade other electors to vote against Trump; not for Hillary, but for another Republican:
Trump has 306 electoral votes ready to be cast for him … so he could lose 36 of them naming anyone they want to and still win with the necessary 270, but if Hillary doesn’t get 38 more votes she can’t win either.
Leaving me in doubt that this could ever happen … you know Trump having 38 votes in a take away action resulting in Hillary now having the necessary 270 and leaving Trump 2 shy at 268 votes.
Impossible, but so was Donald Trump winning 306 electoral votes in the first place.
Hillary Clintons first speech after losing the election was in effect “Hang in there” “Never give up” I think she is secretly hoping this reversal will happen.
And this won’t be too hard: All they have to do is take all those articles they wrote before the election that said even though Clinton might win states totaling more than 270 EV’s, the College might elect Trump, and everyone should be fine with that; swap mentions of Clinton and Trump; republish.
And if you say that Clinton is qualified, but Trump is not… The customary way to decide such things is by voting.
Yup, agreed
Better chance we’ll see “Cruz Control” before Hillary.
I remember those fears and then Trump won Ohio and then Florida and then North Carolina and to top it all of wound up winning Pennsylvania late at night.
Now for the second part of the election, the one taken for granted every year.
The electoral college meets in just 29 and 1/2 days.
Electors are, for the most part and on both sides, party hacks. Republican electors will not, under any circumstances or in response to any reasoned argument, vote for Hillary Clinton.
The question then becomes how many of them are loyal to the party and how many to Trump personally. As I have said elsewhere, if Hillary were to “release” her electors and urge them to vote for Romney, Ryan, Kasich or some other conservative but qualified Republican, I think most, out of fear of a Trump presidency, would do so. Then the prospect of peeling off enough Republican electors to deny Trump the win becomes something to consider.
And don’t give me any of that guff about “denying the will of the people”. That cap’s already over the wall.
Some months ago I floated the idea that Clinton should pick a moderate GOP (I threw out the name of Christie Todd Whitman) as her VP choice.
I was told there, and I think HC by her actions said, “Move towards the median voter? Why? This election is in the bag!”
In a game-theoretic sense, it would seem easier to get the EC to switch to, say, Kasich, than Clinton, as the preferences of the D’s are : HC, Kasich, Trump and the GOP’s are (we postulate) a mix of Trump, Kasich, HC and Kasich, Trump, HC. Politically, though, it’s harder. No one gets their first choice, and it’s clear the USA is in no mood lately to compromise 
Ought oh more fuel for the fire: Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Over Donald Trump Now Exceeds 1.5 Million Votes - ABC News
Hillary Clinton’s Popular Vote Lead Over Donald Trump Now Exceeds 1.5 Million Votes
I’m curious about this as well (in a purely hypothetical sense; I’m not wishing for such a scenario). Or what if it was very close, and a couple of electors died?
As far as I know, every state has provisions for replacing electors. The party names alternates in advance, or the Secretary of State appoints someone from the same party, or the remaining electors elect a replacement, etc.