Georgia Republican says he might withhold electoral college vote from Trump

[HillOfANight]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/03/georgia-republican-says-he-might-withhold-electoral-college-vote-from-donald-trump/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless he puts Clinton to 269, it doesn't matter, but damn!

[Lyin' Steve]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/03/georgia-republican-says-he-might-withhold-electoral-college-vote-from-donald-trump/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless he puts Clinton to 269, it doesn't matter, but damn!

This should be illegal.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I wonder if there will be a record of faithless electors this election. Shouldn't be a hard record to beat considering the previous record is like what, one or two?

[JRP1994]

Agreed. I'm no Trump fan (I think he's a walking, talking, orange threat to our nation's wellbeing) but faithless electors should be illegal. And the electoral college should be made proportional.

[HillOfANight]

Burn it all down and go with a national vote.

[HillOfANight]

I wonder if there will be a record of faithless electors this election. Shouldn't be a hard record to beat considering the previous record is like what, one or two?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors

There should be, Wikipedia has been keeping track.

[Speedy]

Burn it all down and go with a national vote.

[Erc]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

[Inmate Trump]

If it's a matter of who wins the election, where a small few EVs make the difference, then I support this wholeheartedly to keep Trump out of the White House, thus securing the Republic for at least another 4 years.

[Crumpets]

This is pretty much the only vaguely realistic map I can come up with where one EV swings the election. And it doesn't really even do that unless that voter goes to Clinton and doesn't just abstain or write in Romney or something. The latter would just keep the election in the House, as nobody reaches 270 in either. Of course, if this becomes a trend, it would be much worse for the Donald and democracy.

Hillary Clinton 269/270 (depending on how EC voter votes)
Donald Trump 268

[Speedy]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

I agree that the reason behind having an electoral college is very fair. However, as you've said yourself, the convention of what electors are "supposed" to do has become so solidified that an election result altered by the electors could prove even more damaging than a neurotic demagogue being awarded the victory. Beyond that, my real distaste for the college is not that it acts as a safety measure against the whims of direct democracy, but rather that it effectively distorts the demographics/interests/concerns of the voting public by reducing the amount of voters whose votes actually matter.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

I agree that the reason behind having an electoral college is very fair. However, as you've said yourself, the convention of what electors are "supposed" to do has become so solidified that an election result altered by the electors could prove even more damaging than a neurotic demagogue being awarded the victory. Beyond that, my real distaste for the college is not that it acts as a safety measure against the whims of direct democracy, but rather that it effectively distorts the demographics/interests/concerns of the voting public by reducing the amount of voters whose votes actually matter.

I think having Mr. "I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me" in the White House would be more damaging than anything the electoral college might do.

[Speedy]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

I agree that the reason behind having an electoral college is very fair. However, as you've said yourself, the convention of what electors are "supposed" to do has become so solidified that an election result altered by the electors could prove even more damaging than a neurotic demagogue being awarded the victory. Beyond that, my real distaste for the college is not that it acts as a safety measure against the whims of direct democracy, but rather that it effectively distorts the demographics/interests/concerns of the voting public by reducing the amount of voters whose votes actually matter.

I think having Mr. "I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me" in the White House would be more damaging than anything the electoral college might do.

In no way am I trying to dismiss the damage that a Trump presidency would cause to the American institutions. Rather, I just think it's also worth giving serious consideration to the extent of the damage that a collegiate coup and the ensuing political chaos would do as well, especially if it required a sizable bloc to accomplish it (not that such a scenario is anything more than theory in this election for a variety of reasons).

[Xing]

Well, maybe we can hope that Hillary wins Georgia, so that it doesn't come to this.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

This is absolutely true, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Continuing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now it may be true that having the electors block Trump would lead to an enormous, and possibly even violent backlash. I think the case for that argument is quite strong, given how long the norm of electors abiding by the will of the voters has existed. If Trump were to nominally win on election night, the electors would have the responsibility of deciding whether or not abrogating that norm would be less destructive for the country than not doing so. That is an unenviable task.

Hopefully we don't get to that point.

[Ljube]

Well, maybe we can hope that Hillary wins Georgia, so that it doesn't come to this.

LOL! She'll win North Carolina, Arizona and Missouri before Georgia. So, little chance for that.

[Nyvin]

I don't agree with him doing this.   If Georgia votes for Trump then the electors should too.

[Crumpets]

Here's another weird scenario where this could have an impact. Trump would have won with 270 EV, but instead the election is thrown to the house.

[Hammy]

Agreed. I'm no Trump fan (I think he's a walking, talking, orange threat to our nation's wellbeing) but faithless electors should be illegal. And the electoral college should be made proportional.

I agree on the proportional concept of electoral votes as long as it's not done by who wins each congressional district, because that would pave the way for someone winning 60% in a state and getting 1/3 of the EVs.

As far as this situation it should absolutely be illegal, but it also shows the flaws of the electoral college--it is realistically possible that if the election is close enough, a small group of people could deny the winner their victory--EV's should be more of a point system rather than leaving it up to actual people who may or may not follow the rules.

[izixs]

Oddly enough I was thinking about writing a brief what if timeline where something like this happened.

[Xing]

Well, maybe we can hope that Hillary wins Georgia, so that it doesn't come to this.

LOL! She'll win North Carolina, Arizona and Missouri before Georgia. So, little chance for that.

I didn't say it was likely, just that it would allow that particular elector to avoid voting for Trump.

[HillOfANight]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/03/an-electoral-college-revolt-against-donald-trump-is-quickly-quashed-in-georgia/

Ok, he's out, but at least he gave electors in a couple states some ideas

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/03/an-electoral-college-revolt-against-donald-trump-is-quickly-quashed-in-georgia/

Ok, he's out, but at least he gave electors in a couple states some ideas

He shouldn't have come out so soon.

[Badger]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

I agree that the reason behind having an electoral college is very fair. However, as you've said yourself, the convention of what electors are "supposed" to do has become so solidified that an election result altered by the electors could prove even more damaging than a neurotic demagogue being awarded the victory. Beyond that, my real distaste for the college is not that it acts as a safety measure against the whims of direct democracy, but rather that it effectively distorts the demographics/interests/concerns of the voting public by reducing the amount of voters whose votes actually matter.

extremely well put.

[defe07]

Agreed. I'm no Trump fan (I think he's a walking, talking, orange threat to our nation's wellbeing) but faithless electors should be illegal. And the electoral college should be made proportional.

I agree on the proportional concept of electoral votes as long as it's not done by who wins each congressional district, because that would pave the way for someone winning 60% in a state and getting 1/3 of the EVs.

As far as this situation it should absolutely be illegal, but it also shows the flaws of the electoral college--it is realistically possible that if the election is close enough, a small group of people could deny the winner their victory--EV's should be more of a point system rather than leaving it up to actual people who may or may not follow the rules.

I'm in favor of allocating electoral votes proportionally. A third party candidate can get 15% in many states and will come out with almost 80 electoral votes.