Contact Electors to vote against Trump

[Hercules56]

http://flipthe37.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-nuclear-option.html

^^^^^ List of GOP Electors

The Electoral College meets on December 19th to vote for President.

They can vote for any candidate they like. They can still choose a different person for President, other than Donald Trump.

I urge you all to contact the GOP Electors in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and urge them to vote for another Republican, preferably John Kasich or Jeb Bush, as they are sane men, calm under pressure, able to handle stress in difficult times. Unlike Trump, who is a loose cannon who simply doesn't have the temperment to be President.

If you do contact these people, please be polite, civil, and courteous.

 

[Bob001]

www.facebook.com/flipthe37

http://flipthe37.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-nuclear-option.html

The Electoral College meets on December 19th to vote for President.

They can vote for any candidate they like. They can still choose a different person for President, other than Donald Trump.

I urge you all to contact the GOP Electors in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and urge them to vote for another Republican, preferably John Kasich or Jeb Bush, as they are sane men, calm under pressure, able to handle stress in difficult times. Unlike Trump, who is a loose cannon who simply doesn't have the temperment to be President.
....

I in no way support Trump or the Republicans. But if the electors try to do this, i think the most politically palatable and practical course would be to choose Mike Pence as President, as distasteful as he is. You could make the argument that Pence was on the ballot, the people voted for him, and as a congressman and governor he has demonstrated a basic commitment to democratic principles.

 

[Hercules56]

I in no way support Trump or the Republicans. But if the electors try to do this, i think the most politically palatable and practical course would be to choose Mike Pence as President, as distasteful as he is. You could make the argument that Pence was on the ballot, the people voted for him, and as a congressman and governor he has demonstrated a basic commitment to democratic principles.

I say John Kasich or Jeb Bush.

They are sane, sound, intelligent men.

Stay cool in a crisis. Unlike Trump.

I have already contact 3 Electors in PA. Please take some time to contact these people, politely.

 

[Belz...]

I in no way support Trump or the Republicans. But if the electors try to do this, i think the most politically palatable and practical course would be to choose Mike Pence as President, as distasteful as he is.

Why? What would that change? Pence is probably going to handle most of the day-to-day government stuff anyway, or his influence will be felt one way or another. What's the point of voting against Trump if you're going with his VP pick anyway?

 

[Bob001]

You are asking the electors, a few hundred ordinary people, to do something that has never happened before in U.S. history. You have to make a case that is consistent with our core values. Bush and Kasich ran for election and were rejected decisively. Pence was on the ballot that Americans voted for. The argument to be made is not that Pence's political views are too conservative, but that Trump is so personally corrupt and unhinged -- demonstrated throughout the campaign and subsequently, with his promotion of his businesses to foreign officials -- that he is not fit to assume office. It would be a pre-emptive impeachment of one person, not a do-over of the election.

 

[Hercules56]

Alexander Hamilton made it clear in the Federalist Papers No. 68, that the People should have their say, but its the role of the Electors to make the final decision as to who is actually qualified and prepared to lead our country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Federalist_68_outlined

 

[Hercules56]

I have seen no evidence that Pence is unhinged, inflicted by poor anger managemant, unable to control his temper, easy to be baited.

On the contrary, Pence has shown to be calm, cool, and in control.

Would I prefer Pence over Trump? Does Pence show more of the qualities required to be President?

Yes.

 

[timhau]

He comes short in the "was elected president" quality.

 

[Bob001]

He comes short in the "was elected president" quality.

He was elected vice-president. For the present purpose, that's close enough.

 

[Brainster]

While you're at it, ask them to send me the winning Powerball ticket.

 

[marplots]

I hope this effort fails.

It's a sad day for democracy when agitators and activists can alter the results of an election. This is wrong.

 

[Macgyver1968]

It would be pointless. Neither candidate would have the 270 electoral votes needed, and the House would decide from the top 3 electoral vote getters. The House is controlled by the GOP, so Trump would end up President anyway.

 

[elgarak]

I hope this effort fails.

It's a sad day for democracy when agitators and activists can alter the results of an election. This is wrong.

Why is the electoral college there at all? Why do they have to cast votes (separate for POTUS and VP, I might add, because not all may know) AT ALL?

If it's clear how they vote, or they cannot deviate from their intended vote, you DO NOT NEED THEM. You could collect colored beads during election night if this were the case. (In fact, that's what they do, albeit virtually.)

They DO have a function and a power. Even if no other college before them has ever used that power.

 

[marplots]

Why is the electoral college there at all? Why do they have to cast votes (separate for POTUS and VP, I might add, because not all may know) AT ALL?

If it's clear how they vote, or they cannot deviate from their intended vote, you DO NOT NEED THEM. You could collect colored beads during election night if this were the case. (In fact, that's what they do, albeit virtually.)

They DO have a function and a power. Even if no other college before them has ever used that power.

They have a duty. Yes, modern technology has obviated the need for a bunch of people to travel to Washington DC and cast votes, but so what? The idea is the same - they represent the wishes of the states which sent them. They have a duty to vote based on the will of the people in their own states. Emails and petitions should have no power to change these basic facts.

Saying they should vote according to their conscience means voting for whomever they are sent to vote for. Trying to change this with an email campaign is a terrible use of public pressure in a venue deserving of a bit more respect.

This is the worst sort of Monday morning quarterbacking by emailing the referees to change the rulings made during the game. It's beneath us as a civilized democracy. It's trying to drive a broken bus through a loophole in a misguided attempt to thwart the results of a free and fair election.

These people don't deserve to be made into chew toys for sore losers.

 

[Belz...]

Why is the electoral college there at all? Why do they have to cast votes (separate for POTUS and VP, I might add, because not all may know) AT ALL?

Because originally the POTUS wasn't elected by popular vote.

 

[BobTheCoward]

They have a duty. Yes, modern technology has obviated the need for a bunch of people to travel to Washington DC and cast votes, but so what?.

The electors don't travel to DC. They vote in their state

 

[TragicMonkey]

The price of democracy is putting up with other people's choices even when they disagree with you.

 

[plague311]

I hope this effort fails.

It's a sad day for democracy when agitators and activists can alter the results of an election. This is wrong.

I think you'd find a large part of the country that thinks it's a sad day (or multiple days) when someone wins the popular vote by almost 2 million votes, but still doesn't win because of a ridiculous, outdated and, frankly, retarded process. I mean retarded in the literal definition. In my opinion it slows down progress. I understand all of the arguments for it (for some reason cities should be equal to rural areas ), but to me your argument isn't anymore right than those you claim would be wrong.

 

[marplots]

I think you'd find a large part of the country that thinks it's a sad day (or multiple days) when someone wins the popular vote by almost 2 million votes, but still doesn't win because of a ridiculous, outdated and, frankly, retarded process. I mean retarded in the literal definition. In my opinion it slows down progress. I understand all of the arguments for it (for some reason cities should be equal to rural areas ), but to me your argument isn't anymore right than those you claim would be wrong.

I don't think moving to a popular vote is wrong, it's just a different way of soliciting a broad opinion of the citizenry.

The question here is a bit different though. It's asking people to lobby electors directly in an attempt to thwart the mechanism and structure of the system currently in place. This is different than a call to change the system to another version.

It is a call to essentially side-step the outcome of the election. A coup by way of social media. Is this really something to advocate, even if I feel strongly that the candidate selected is a horrible choice?

I put this in the category of political shenanigans, in the class of holding the budget hostage to get unpopular legislation passed, or making it harder to vote because I think that helps my cause. In short, it's an attack on the structure for a short-term gain. But these often have long-term consequences because one's political opponent doesn't forget the trick - they use it down the road when the proverbial shoe is on the other proverbial foot.

ETA: By even publishing the information widely, these poor folks are going to get deluged by every nutburger with a keyboard and a grudge. Not just those who want them to change their vote, but those who will insist they stay the course. The electors can't win here unless they manage to wall themselves off to ignore it.

Either it will gain no traction and we won't hear much more, or we'll soon see news stories about threatening tweets and emails. I hope the hounds haven't been released, but fear they may have been.

 

[plague311]

I don't think moving to a popular vote is wrong, it's just a different way of soliciting a broad opinion of the citizenry.

The question here is a bit different though. It's asking people to lobby electors directly in an attempt to thwart the mechanism and structure of the system currently in place. This is different than a call to change the system to another version.

It is a call to essentially side-step the outcome of the election. A coup by way of social media. Is this really something to advocate, even if I feel strongly that the candidate selected is a horrible choice?

I put this in the category of political shenanigans, in the class of holding the budget hostage to get unpopular legislation passed, or making it harder to vote because I think that helps my cause. In short, it's an attack on the structure for a short-term gain. But these often have long-term consequences because one's political opponent doesn't forget the trick - they use it down the road when the proverbial shoe is on the other proverbial foot.

Overall, I can't really say I disagree with you. If we wanted to use the popular vote then we should have changed it before hand. My point was that I can understand why people would want to do everything in their power to try to change an outcome they feel isn't an accurate reflection of the people. I say the same thing about them, I can't say I disagree with them.

I don't think this will work, obviously, but I'm certainly not against the attempt. Change has to start somewhere, and maybe a public outcry showing extreme dissatisfaction with the way our system works could be a starting point.