Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Electoral College Revolt Brewing?

Electoral College Revolt Brewing?

A Republic. How does it work?

As half the country learned two weeks ago, we do not select our president by popular vote, our president is selected by Electors in our Electoral College; a safeguard against pure democratic rule.

As far as modern history is concerned, Elector’s votes are typically congruent with their respective state’s popular vote.

Now, a handful of Democratic electors are threatening to vote their conscience:

At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they’re unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they’d likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

It’s an interesting ideological conundrum for Democrats — side with die hard Bernie fans and champion a move to block a Trump presidency and agree that the Electoral College has it’s advantages or continue decrying the electoral process, pushing for a change that’s already brewing in the fringes.

As Politico pointed out, it’s extremely unlikely the renegade Electors will be able to syphon enough support away from Trump to change the outcome of the election. Though, if they did, I’m not sure how it would prove the system inadequate. If anything, it would be a nationwide lesson on how we’re actually a republic and not a democracy.

Democrats aren’t limiting tumult to their own side of the Electoral College. There’ve been numerous reports of Republican Electors receiving death threats from Hillary supporters:

And so now, some Electoral College voters say, they’re receiving fewer attempts at persuasion, and more strong-arming—including the occasional death threat.

“At first everyone was kinda enchanted by it,” one Texas elector told local media. “Now all the electors are starting to get beaten down. There are some electors who have been threatened with harm or with death.”

In Georgia, things got bad enough that the Secretary of State issued a statement warning that Clinton supporters who harass Electors over the phone—including anyone who encouraged the practice —could be subject to dire consequences. In Arizona, Electors reported as many as 8,000 calls, some of which, they say, became “hateful.”

“They demonize me, they call me a homophobic, an isolationist, a bigot, a misogynist, and an anti-Semite, which is interesting because I’m Jewish,” one Arizona delegate told the Arizona Republic.

One Michigan Elector, Michigan Young Republicans Chairman Mike Banerian, was forced to file a police report after his voice mail filled up with terrifying messages. “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” Banerian told the Detroit News.

“I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”

That’s tolerance for ya.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Trying to talk the party-appointed electors into throwing away the party’s candidate is one thing, and protected speech.

Threatening them towards the same end is entirely different and beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour.

Always remember, they were the campaign caught on video arranging for paid violence and vote fraud pre-election.

If for some reason we did get rid of the Electoral College system and switch to the Popular Vote these idiots would change their minds as soon as they lost the first popular vote!

You can bet your butt that the first time Dems lose the popular vote they will try and re-institute the electoral college. That’s the Liberal way. Change the rules to benefit them after the game has started.

What would be funny is if Trump ended up with 320 votes 🙂

This is not the say for Democrats to reestablish themselves…

“…to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.”

And that institution is the Democrat Party.

It’s OK for Democrats to use strong-arm tactics, especially in the al-Chicagi era. Their Dear Leader will simply give them all pardons.

The day the Electoral College fails to elect Trump will not be a happy day.

If they pull this off I have a feeling they’ll get the revolution they’ve been talking about. It won’t work out in their favor.

Where are the DOJ and FBI on these death threats?

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to Andy. | November 23, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Investigating Hillary’s emails? I wouldn’t have the first clue what they are actually doing.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Andy. | November 23, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    “Where are the DOJ and FBI on these death threats?”

    Obeying Loretta’s orders.

    snopercod in reply to Andy. | November 23, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    It constitutes sedition and should be prosecuted.

    18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

BLM and Anti Trump Protestors will look like pussies if this happens. The rage may not controllable.

I guess the only oaths that Dems believe in honoring are those made to Gaia.

“Selected, not elected,” anyone?

I’ll be in the bar while you work on it.

thalesofmiletus | November 23, 2016 at 11:29 am

Well, that’s one way to start Civil War II…

First of all, this nation was never set up to be anything more than a voluntary coalition of semi-independent states, which supported an umbrella governmental organization whose sole purpose was to orchestrate the common defense, enter into agreements with foreign powers [on behalf of the member states] and to regulate trade and settle disputes among the member states. To achieve this, this nation was originally set up to provide fair, nearly equal, representation to all of the member states. Back in the 1790s; New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia dominated the new nation, population-wise. That is why the Founders chose a bicameral legislature with one house based upon population [House of Representatives] and other on an equal number of representatives per state [Senate]. And, the important powers of advice and consent and treaty ratification with ensconced in the house with equal representation, the Senate. The electoral college was set up for the same purpose. By awarding sets of electors to each state, based upon population, but not equivalent to that state’s population, it assured that no single state, nor a small coalition of states, could dominate the nation. It is, in essence, a compromise between those regions with high concentrations of population and those with low concentrations of population.

What the anti-Trump forces are doing is terminally short sighted. It is essentially political warfare against approximately half of this nation. Unfortunately for them, it is the half which grows the food and provides the services and infrastructure that keeps this nation alive. Once you declare war on someone, that person is free to use the resources at his disposal to fight back. How long do you think the Democrat power base in the cities would last, if the rest of the country cut off food, electricity, gas, water and other things necessary to make those cities inhabitable? Not very long.

The Trump voters won this contest fair and square, under the rules applying at the time. To come along after the contest is finished and attempt to change the rules to change the outcome, is not only dishonest, but provides the precedent to allow either side to do the same thing in the future.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | November 23, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    Because Senators represented their States as geopolitical entities (and not the people in them), the Senate was the proper place for the authority over the ratification of treaties to reside. The federal government represents the States as a collective when negotiating with foreign powers, and the Senate was where the States found their veto power over said negotiations.

    The 17th Amendment destroyed this function of the Senate (and the function of protecting States’ rights against federal encroachment). The 17th Amendment must be repealed in order to restore the republic.

      Milwaukee in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 23, 2016 at 9:12 pm

      Yes. Repeal the 17th Amendment. But also reverse the Warren Court work. Many states are bicameral, and the state senate was originally set up on geographic, not population, boundaries. The Warren Court changed that. So now in almost every state a small number of counties can swing a state election. Usually 6 counties in Illinois can carry the state. In a pinch, Cook County alone has won a state election. Having the representatives and the senators population based gives a small region too much power over the rest of the state.

I’ve heard this before but not the extent to which it is happening.

I remember sometime Trump describing parts of the wall as being two walls, separated from by a distance that makes it hard for those trying to climb over.

Well he can now make the gap between the two wall a special prison for those people who threaten electors. We even have a person who can run the prison. Sheriff Joe.

This story is a bit old. THe newest one are some of the wacked out Hillary academics who want to challenge the vote in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. They claim they have statistical proof the voting machines were hacked.

Dec. 19 can’t come soon enough. Sigh.

    Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | November 23, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    Not really. See the separate post about this: NY Magazine misquoted the experts. At least one of them said that he doesn’t actually suspect anything went wrong, but wants Clinton to call for a recount in those states where she can, because that seems to be the only way to get an audit matching the paper ballots to the numbers reported by the optical scanners.

    He makes a very good point; an audit trail does no good if nobody ever looks at it, and if we never look we’ll never know whether there has been any manipulation. It ought to be routine for all ballots to be hand-counted after the election, when there is time, so if there was hanky-panky we’ll know about it and be able to prevent it next time. But it isn’t routine, so we need a recount or two just for safety’s sake. And the only states where recounts are available are the ones where the winning margin happens to be thin.

      sequester in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2016 at 11:08 am

      An audit is far from benign. At best it would cause Gore 2000 confusion. Encouraging electors to change their votes could potentially bring on the greatest constitutional crisis since the civil war. Offering to pay the fines of bound electors may well be an offer of a bribe. Threating or intimidating electors is likewise likely prosecutable.

      By the way – Congress counts the votes of the electors and has the ability to correct miscast (or irregular) electoral votes. See 3 U.S. Code § 15

It seems off that Dems are recruiting canvassers on Craigslist 2 weeks after the election.

http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/gov/5852341934.html

    Andy in reply to Andy. | November 23, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    could be they are letting the ad run from before the election. I don’t see anything new posted after the 8th.

    pthastings in reply to Andy. | November 23, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Would love to see James O’Keefe and Project Veritas infiltrate and videotape some conversations with the leaders of the groups in these ads.

Do these Democrat party bullies act like Nazi brownshirts for a reason? Soros claims he was not an actor in his Nazi days but I do not believe it. He is putting his experience to use. He knows how to take down a government and replace it with a totalitarian regime.

Democratic electors are threatening to vote their conscience

Democrats? Conscience?

Funny stuff.

    Granny in reply to tom swift. | November 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    I picked up on that too. Does the pledge of these Democrat electors mean that they are going to vote their conscience and vote for Donald Trump? Otherwise it would seem pointless to me for a Democrat to “take the pledge.”

      Milhouse in reply to Granny. | November 23, 2016 at 8:04 pm

      No, they’re offering to vote for a Republican other than Trump, if enough Republican electors will join them to throw it to the House.

        RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2016 at 2:29 am

        That doesn’t make sense. In throwing it to the House, the top three electoral vote getters get submitted as candidates So let us say, Hillary, Trump and Romney.

        I doubt any will have enough to win on a first round ( unless it’s Trump, there might be some loss of representatives but not so much that a first round will go to either Hillary or Romney ). So it would be either Hillary vs Trump or Romeny vs Trump. I can’t see Trump losing in either case.

Who in their right mind would want all our future leaders selected primarily by the lunatic fringe in the urban areas of the Blue States? Can this country cope with the “takers” being in control?

Who in their right mind thinks that 75 percent of the state legislatures would vote themselves into irrevalance

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election.

The ability of the Democrats to steal elections and screw up the country amazes me.

The tying that bothers me is .Hillary could put a stop to this and does not .
She is hoping for a miracle.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend