Ummm no. They are Democrats who want to vote for a moderate Pub and encourage those pledged to Trump to do the same. Read about it in this thread.
Anyone predicting anything interesting with regard to electors? My guess is there will be more than 1 faithless elector, but well fewer than 37. Nothing more interesting than that.
Yeah, big difference between wanting the right to do something and actually wanting to do that something.
I suspect that not a single Democrat elector, despite all their talk, will vote for a Republican such as Kasich or McCain.
And if every one of the democratic electors did in fact, vote for Kasich, would that make a difference? Not really. Not at all, in fact.
That’s why this is about republican electors. They are the ones that actually have the power here.
Now, if some sort of deal making is to be done, and at least enough republicans pledge to deny trump a majority, I would be in favor of the democratic electors joining ranks with the republicans to elect a kasich or mcain, or even pence. I would in fact be quite upset with the democratic party if they did not.
It is not republicans I am afraid of. No, I don’t agree with their policies, and I feel that their implementation of them would do more harm to our country than good, but to paraphrase what P.J. O’rouke said about clinton, at least they are wrong within normal parameters. Republican policies may stifle growth a bit, but Trump’s policies will cause a severe recession. R policies may be more warhawkish than I like, but I wouldn’t put it past Trump to get us involved in a world war.
I’ll be surprised if there are more than 3 in total.
I’ll be surpised if there are more than 3 in total.
You can say that again.
While I am sure there are plenty of anti-Trump people that would LOVE to see him not get the electoral nod…IMO any dreams of that happening are not just dreams…they are dangerous as all get out.
IFFFFF the electoral college dumped Trump, they might “get away with it” if they choose Pence instead. IMO, even THAT would be pretty darn risky.
Anything else, and especially Hillary instead?
You’d probably have the start of a civil war.
And I suspect most of those electors know that as well.
The crazy thing is that the Electoral College (and the House, if it gets dumped there) isn’t bound to party hegemony. So you could theoretically end up with Tim Kaine as Prez and Pence as VP, or vice versa.
Realistically, the most extreme scenario is approx. 6 to 10 Trump electors changing their votes, not enough to affect the outcome but enough to shake up the system. (Not that D’Rump himself would notice…) But my gut tells me that there won’t be any changed votes at all – not even typos. Which frankly says a lot, when you take into account how there’s always 1 or 2 faithless electors in every election. Nobody wants to be “that guy” this time around.
Not to nitpick, but only 6 of the last 12 Presidential elections have had faithless electors, and it hasn’t been more than one.
Hell, the last time a presidential vote had more than one faithless elector was 1872, when one of the presidential candidates died in the interim between the popular and electoral votes. The last time it happened under less extraordinary circumstances was 1832.
Has it been only 50%? Could’ve sworn it was more common than that. :smack:
Still, having a single faithless elector in 50% of recent elections means that’s No Big Deal when it happens, and in fact most of the public at large isn’t even aware of these occasional glitches in the system. Presidential Elections, by and large, are fairly mundane and routine; even the 2000 drama was between two very standard, unexceptional candidates. (Nobody knew at the time what a total fuckup GWB would become, and Gore was merely boring.) The difference is that this year this election is certainly NOT routine.
And that’s why I think there won’t be a single faithless elector. Because for all the talk and drama, these 538 electors who potentially hold our Constitution’s fate in the balance are merely human, and most human beings are wimpy cowards who dislike rocking the boat. There are exceptions – hell, we just elected one – but the chances of having even one boat-rocker in this year’s Electoral College are extremely remote.
I you want live updates: Electoral College vote: Live updates on state-by-state voting
So far: not one “unfaithful” elector.
According to slate, one elector in Maine voted for Bernie, and a Minnesota faithless elector was replaced by an alternate.
The Maine elector tried to vote for Bernie, was told his vote was invalid, and voted for Clinton.
So far - no “faithless” electors. Maybe the Texas Trump elector will come through to make this not completely boring. Or those Washington/Colorado Clinton electors…
… Colorado electors wimped out and all voted for Hillary. All eyes are now on Washington and that lone Texas elector.
On edit: and Washington State electors do not disappoint!
“BREAKING: WA Electoral college presidential results: 8 votes Hillary Clinton, 3 votes Colin Powell, 1 “Faith Spotted Eagle””
Nope. One was replaced after not voting for Clinton and now faces 1 year in jail and/or $1000 fine.
So there have been 7 faithless electors (counting those replaced or invalidated) but all were Clinton electors. Interesting.
So there’s been four actual, recorded faithless electors so far this year (including the first electoral vote ever cast for a Native American). I almost want there to be three more, so we can break the post-12th Amendment “record” of six faithless electors from the 1808 election.
Yes, and IIRC the WA ones were among the first to announce they’d bolt.