Contact Electors to vote against Trump

[Ethan Thane Athen]

And what is wrong with being a Trump supporter? Chris B.

I could do you a helpful list but I wouldn't like to be the cause of that much self-loathing in a fellow poster

 

[thaiboxerken]

And what is wrong with being a Trump supporter? Chris B.

The same thing as being a Nazi supporter.

 

[eeyore1954]

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

At least they are being green.

 

[NoahFence]

And what is wrong with being a Trump supporter? Chris B.

LOL

Trump supporters have either been conned, or are racist.

It's really either/or.

 

[phiwum]

To me, it seems like you wish to start another Civil War in the US. However let's examine this plan and say you only intend to deny Trump 270 Electoral votes. If the election goes before Congress to determine the winner, how would that pan out for Clinton?

If your plan has Clinton ending up with 270 electoral votes, how would that pan out with the rest of the states that voted to elect Trump? The likely result, a war between the states. How exactly would that unify the US?
I feel your pain, I've been on the losing side as well before, yet I don't think it good for the Country to try and change the rules of the election after the fact.
Chris B.

The likely result? Golly.

 

[Belz...]

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

That's also the price of tyranny, in a lot of ways.

 

[theprestige]

The same thing as being a Nazi supporter.

I think after eight years of "Bushitler", the whole bogus "Nazi" meme lost whatever potency it might have had. People were either going to take you seriously and make a change right away, or they were going to just get tired of your constant refrain of "you're a Nazi!" and stop caring.

You're basically singing lullabies to yourself, at this point. Even the choir is starting to lose interest in the sermon.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think after eight years of "Bushitler", the whole bogus "Nazi" meme lost whatever potency it might have had. People were either going to take you seriously and make a change right away, or they were going to just get tired of your constant refrain of "you're a Nazi!" and stop caring.

You're basically singing lullabies to yourself, at this point. Even the choir is starting to lose interest in the sermon.

I think Nazi sympathizers would agree with you.

 

[Belz...]

I think after eight years of "Bushitler", the whole bogus "Nazi" meme lost whatever potency it might have had. People were either going to take you seriously and make a change right away, or they were going to just get tired of your constant refrain of "you're a Nazi!" and stop caring.

Generally I would agree with you. However, this time actual Neo-Nazis are supporting Trump. He may not appreciate it, but they are there.

 

[Bob001]

Trump response to Jill Stein's recount requests is to allege massive election fraud, an odd claim to be made by the winner. Question: If substantial -- or even plausible -- evidence of election fraud surfaced, would that free electors to say they couldn't rely on the election results and would vote their consciences?

 

[sunmaster14]

Trump response to Jill Stein's recount requests is to allege massive election fraud, an odd claim to be made by the winner. Question: If substantial -- or even plausible -- evidence of election fraud surfaced, would that free electors to say they couldn't rely on the election results and would vote their consciences?

Electors were never meant to vote their consciences, and they are not selected on the basis of having consciences, or wisdom, or the good of the nation at heart. Nor are they selected by the people. They are party hacks for the most part. Our protection against an illegitimate, criminal, incompetent, or crazed President is Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove him from office at any time.

 

[Belz...]

Trump response to Jill Stein's recount requests is to allege massive election fraud, an odd claim to be made by the winner.

It sure answers the question in the other thread: "Is Donald Trump a strategic genius?"

 

[Ziggurat]

Generally I would agree with you. However, this time actual Neo-Nazis are supporting Trump. He may not appreciate it, but they are there.

Actual communists supported Hillary, and there are more communists than neo-nazis in America.

But neither group matters. They are both irrelevant fringes (there are only a few hundred neo-nazis and maybe a few thousand communists), and their support for either candidate says nothing of actual interest.

ETA: Hillary Clinton will never be president.

 

[Belz...]

Actual communists supported Hillary

Also true. I was responding to a criticism of using Hitler references, remember?

ETA: Hillary Clinton will never be president.

The odds are about as low as they can get.

 

[Bob001]

Electors were never meant to vote their consciences, and they are not selected on the basis of having consciences, or wisdom, or the good of the nation at heart. Nor are they selected by the people. They are party hacks for the most part. Our protection against an illegitimate, criminal, incompetent, or crazed President is Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove him from office at any time.

The role of the electors has evolved over time, but originally (and I suspect you might be an "originalist") the Constitution created the Electoral College to function as a kind of legislature to select the President and VP. There is no federal law requiring them to vote for any particular candidate, and most states either have no requirement or impose a small fine for violations. Of course, electors are mostly party hacks as you say, and it's very unlikely they wouldn't vote for their candidate. But there's nothing to prevent them from putting the country first. And if Trump electors cast their votes for Pence, they wouldn't be betraying any core principles.

 

[sunmaster14]

The role of the electors has evolved over time, but originally (and I suspect you might be an "originalist") the Constitution created the Electoral College to function as a kind of legislature to select the President and VP.

Only in the event no candidate won a majority of electoral votes. Otherwise, they were expected to do the bidding of the states they represented. See here for an explanation.

 

[phiwum]

delete

 

[marplots]

ETA: Hillary Clinton will never be president.

Don't be so pessimistic. She only lost in the one country so far.

 

[LSSBB]

Only in the event no candidate won a majority of electoral votes. Otherwise, they were expected to do the bidding of the states they represented. See here for an explanation.

From the article I quoted earler, specifically regarding Trump's conflicts of interest regarding receiving foreign funding:

This is where the Electoral College comes in. Tribe notes that the Electoral College was “originally conceived by Framers like Alexander Hamilton as a vital safeguard against the assumption of the Presidency by an ‘unfit character’ or one incapable of serving faithfully to ‘execute the Office of President of the United States [and] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”
“[T]o vote for Trump in the absence of such complete divestment… would represent an abdication of the solemn duties of the 538 Electors,” Tribe said.
This view is not a position of disgruntled liberals. Richard Painter, Bush’s Chief Ethics Counsel, was in complete agreement with Tribe and Eisen during a recent appearance on CNN.
“I don’t think the electoral college can vote for someone to become president if he’s going to be in violation of the Constitution on day one and hasn’t assured us he’s not in violation,” Painter said.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't be so pessimistic. She only lost in the one country so far.

That was optimism. But you may be right, it might be uncalled for.

Hey, maybe Raul would like to retire now.