This could still be exciting even after Tuesday 
IIRC, he’s also said he won’t be faithless if doing so would change the outcome of the election.
That’s not what he’s saying now, but who knows what he’ll actually do.
I highly doubt that last quoted sentence, but who knows. Maybe the guy is hearing voices.
Well, that’s certainly disappointing, and he should be ashamed of himself for disrespecting the wishes of the Washingtonian electorate.
Unless the Electoral result is 270-268, his futile gesture won’t make a difference, at least - and if he did hand the election to Trump under those circumstances he’ll go down as one of the most hated people in American history and rightly so.
I’m confident Trump will win the faithless elector vote.
Like I’ve said in other threads, the Electoral College is one of our electoral system’s greatest vulnerabilities. The electors can be required to take a pledge that they will vote for the candidate whose slate they’re on, and states can pass laws of untested Constitutionality that penalize a faithless elector.
But the Electoral College, in the end, is composed of 538 people, rather than 538 automatic votes. And the Constitution, as was the clear intent of the Founders, empowers them to be the Deciders, and make that decision however they want. They could all decide to vote for Evan McMullin, and who could stop them? If they did, the Constitution says he’d be our next President. One of these years, that’s gonna bite this country in the ass.
I don’t know if it will happen in this election, but unless we finally scrap the electoral college, it is inevitable – eventually, this outdated system that nobody really, truly believes in will produce an existential political crisis. Maybe it’s this year. Who knows?
I seem to recall a republican elector from Georgia making a similar pronouncement earlier in the year about Trump, but he resigned. Any chance we could get this clown to do the same? Or, worse, will he inspire other protest voters?
Not necessarily. It’s there for a reason, just in case the public acts stupid. The problem is that IMO the only way the EC can do its duty is to support neither Clinton NOR Trump, but rather if Clinton wins, to select a more decent Democrat, say Tim Kaine.
Besides, he should just quote Clinton. “It was allowed.” See, no scandal if it’s allowed.
'Twere that true, there’d be not a single elector willing to vote for Trump.
My first reaction was gut-wrenching disgust, but in truth, I actually think this guy is doing us a public service. He might actually be doing us a favor by making the race more interesting than it should be. It’ll convince other blue states to pass laws that jail and fine the ever-living crap out of faithless electors. People in that role who ignore the will of the voters should still have the ability to do so, but they should be punished severely for it. I think there actually is a case for a faithless elector but it should be narrowly defined to things like finding out after the fact that there is strong evidence for vote rigging or something that would call into doubt the legitimacy of the candidate. But voting just to use your power to promote a personal agenda should be criminalized. If someone can still live with the consequences of being jailed and fined, so be it.
Actually punishing a faithless elector could be unconstitutional. The courts do not look kindly on officials’ power being taken away that the Constitution specifically delegates to them. And the Constitution specifically says the electors vote for the President.
If someone were accusing him of committing a crime and shouting that he should be “locked up,” your tu quoque analogy would be a little smarter, but I guess we all use what we have to work with.
There are already state laws against faithless electors and the states are given broad discretion on how to conduct their elections and how to choose their electors. A state law that attempts to bind an elector to carry out the wishes of the state that nominates them is most likely constitutional.
Here’s what Wikipedia says:
So it looks like this guy can be removed and replaced, but anyone who actually gets to vote has the right to vote however they please.
Merged similar threads.
The pledge is legal, punishment is probably not.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why are electors chosen before the election? Seems like an easy fix would be to choose them after the election, and allow the winning campaign to choose them.
Looking at this through the lens of strict legalism is not very useful. In an actual constitutional crisis (which an electoral coup would quite possibly be), justifications are made up after the fact, and later understood to be the imperfect product of a difficult time and place. They didn’t carve Abe Lincoln into a mountain because he was careful to hew only to the strict and narrow text of the law when acting to save the union.
That’s the whole point of the election on Tuesday. We’re voting on which people will be presidential electors (there’s probably fine print on your ballot explaining this). If the parties don’t choose their 538 candidates before Tuesday, there’s nothing to vote for.
Electors choosing someone else as President wouldn’t be a danger to the republic, it would be the institution doing exactly what it was designed to do. And it’s not like either of these jokers is riding a wave of popularity into the White House. Most people wish there was another choice. And the electors can still do the next best thing by just voting one of the VP candidates in. “Hey, we realize you voted the Democratic ticket, but the head of the ticket is very problematic, so we’ll allow Kaine in her stead.”
It’s not as if they don’t have cause. Both candidates have multiple FBI investigations going on. That is unprecedented.