Lawrence Lessing, professor at Harvard Law School, wants the Electors in the Electoral College to go rogue and vote for Clinton regardless of the election results the led to the Electors ability to vote.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions  — most important, the electors themselves….

In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.

Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.

There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.

Lessig’s argument boils down to him not liking the electoral college result this cycle. It’s complete pretext.

It would be like demanding that the football team with the most yardage deserved to win the game even if it didn’t score the most points. That’s not how the game is played according to the rules — the teams might have played differently had the rules been different. Perhaps Trump would have spent more time in California trying to drum up votes had this been an election purely based on the popular vote. Perhaps the winning team in the football hypothetical example would have spent more time racking up yardage had it known that it wasn’t playing for points, but for yardage.

Bill Buckley warned us about governance by the Harvard faculty.

How is this for a policy based on Lessig-like logic:

The federal government should strip all federal funding for Harvard University because it can, and most people in America would vote for it.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.