Clinton electors lobbying for EC protest votes? *UPDATE* 29 electors want intel briefing

[Heisenberg]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

[MT Treasurer]

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That's not up to you (or anyone else) to decide. ''The people have spoken'' and Trump has won states with a total of 306 electoral votes. Period.

[ApatheticAustrian]

to make being faithless possible was the whole point of creating the EC, wasn't it?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That's not up to you (or anyone else) to decide. ''The people have spoken'' and Trump has won states with a total of 306 electoral votes. Period.

That's the recommendation of the people yes, but the founders intention was that the electors should be able to reject that recommendation. For as long as we decide as a society to keep using the EC, we need to respect that intention.

[Indy Texas]

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That's not up to you (or anyone else) to decide. ''The people have spoken'' and Trump has won states with a total of 306 electoral votes. Period.

The states have spoken, not the people.

54% of the people did not vote for Donald Trump!

[MT Treasurer]

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That's not up to you (or anyone else) to decide. ''The people have spoken'' and Trump has won states with a total of 306 electoral votes. Period.

The states have spoken, not the people.

54% of the people did not vote for Donald Trump!

The people in those states have spoken!

[JJC]

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That's not up to you (or anyone else) to decide. ''The people have spoken'' and Trump has won states with a total of 306 electoral votes. Period.

That's the recommendation of the people yes, but the founders intention was that the electors should be able to reject that recommendation. For as long as we decide as a society to keep using the EC, we need to respect that intention.

This is wrong on so many levels.

The intent of the EC - and our Republic in general - is not to be "a check on the people", but instead a check on the Federal Government. So that a few high populous states (really just a few high populous cities) don't have total control of our nation's policies.

If the roles were reversed, and the electors 'in good conscience' rejected your winning candidate because 'the people cannot be trusted', you'd be screaming about fascism and the end of our country (and rightly so).

[Indy Texas]

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That's not up to you (or anyone else) to decide. ''The people have spoken'' and Trump has won states with a total of 306 electoral votes. Period.

That's the recommendation of the people yes, but the founders intention was that the electors should be able to reject that recommendation. For as long as we decide as a society to keep using the EC, we need to respect that intention.

This is wrong on so many levels.

The intent of the EC - and our Republic in general - is not to be "a check on the people", but instead a check on the Federal Government. So that a few high populous states (really just a few high populous cities) don't have total control of our nation's policies.

If the roles were reversed, and the electors 'in good conscience' rejected your winning candidate because 'the people cannot be trusted', you'd be screaming about fascism and the end of our country (and rightly so).

Are you suggesting that people who live in cities don't matter as much as people who live in the middle of nowhere?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

the fck do you mean, the people can't be trusted? the people voted for hillary clinton

[Helsinkian]

the fck do you mean, the people can't be trusted? the people voted for hillary clinton

Actually, 51.8 percent of the people did not vote for Clinton.

[Helsinkian]

This is how Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in The Federalist Papers 68:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

He is arguing here that the electors should vote based on "merit", not on the "little arts of popularity".

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the fck do you mean, the people can't be trusted? the people voted for hillary clinton

Actually, 51.8 percent of the people did not vote for Clinton.

nope. at least 10-20% of trump's voters were nazis, and nazis aren't people

[Helsinkian]

the fck do you mean, the people can't be trusted? the people voted for hillary clinton

Actually, 51.8 percent of the people did not vote for Clinton.

nope. at least 10-20% of trump's voters were nazis, and nazis aren't people

Dehumanizing your political opponents, how very fascist of you.

[The Other Castro]

New faithless elector from California (Vinz Koller), bringing the known total to I think 8 Democrats and 1 Republican.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/california-elector-files-suit-joins-anti-trump-electoral-college-push-232472

[Bigby]

New faithless elector from California (Vinz Koller), bringing the known total to I think 8 Democrats and 1 Republican.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/california-elector-files-suit-joins-anti-trump-electoral-college-push-232472

I understand their goal is to strengthen Kasich, but wouldn't having mostly Democrats vote faithless hurt Hillary more than Trump since she has seventy-four fewer EVs than he does? Assuming it stays 8 D - 1 R, Trump wins 305 to 224.

[The Other Castro]

New faithless elector from California (Vinz Koller), bringing the known total to I think 8 Democrats and 1 Republican.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/california-elector-files-suit-joins-anti-trump-electoral-college-push-232472

I understand their goal is to strengthen Kasich, but wouldn't having mostly Democrats vote faithless hurt Hillary more than Trump since she has seventy-four fewer EVs than he does? Assuming it stays 8 D - 1 R, Trump wins 305 to 224.

That part of the plan might just be to show how ridiculous the Electoral College is.

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

Generally, the faithless electors are chosen by the party.

For example, the Colorado electors were chosen at the state convention in April, where a majority of the delegates to the national convention were supporters of Bernie Sanders. Presumably the elector nominees were also distributed on that basis. They had to sign a pledge to support the Democratic nominee.

Washington chose its delegates via a convention process that Sanders dominated, and likely chose its electors the same way. Conceivably, they could all have been Sanders supporters.

In Texas, delegates were apportioned on the basis of the primary, but the delegates and electors were chosen by a separate convention process. The "Trump delegates" likely supported Cruz, and would have switched as soon as possible. The elector nominees were also chosen by state convention.

If the presidential candidates had to file as individuals, they could choose their own electors, who would be more likely to vote for the candidate. The only ones who wouldn't be faithful would be those who hadn't been screened. Since elector candidates aren't on the ballot in most states, you could even have a very late deadline for filing your electors, such as a month before the election.

The filing would be by Donald J. Trump, who would name the Vice-Presidential candidate, and the elector candidates (with their signature). It could also include the signature of the state party chair giving permission to use the party name.

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

[jimrtex]

This is how Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in The Federalist Papers 68:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

He is arguing here that the electors should vote based on "merit", not on the "little arts of popularity".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He did not anticipate the Internet.

And the Federalist Papers were propaganda. If any other method had been chosen, Hamilton would have advocated for it just as forcefully.

[SteveRogers]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

If you're referring to the 12th amendment, that addressed a wholly different problem with the electoral college by separating the votes for president and Vice President. But electors continued to be unbound by any popular vote in many states for quite some time after.

[Tintrlvr]

to make being faithless possible was the whole point of creating the EC, wasn't it?

Sort of. The Electoral College existed before most states held an election for President at all. For the most part, the early Electoral College members were appointed by state legislatures.

[The Mikado]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

If you're referring to the 12th amendment, that addressed a wholly different problem with the electoral college by separating the votes for president and Vice President. But electors continued to be unbound by any popular vote in many states for quite some time after.

If that's the way you're going to go, electors weren't "bound" even later, the states just, one by one, changed their method of choosing electors from state legislatures deciding to voters deciding (with SC as the final holdout). Even after you switch from state legislatures picking electors to people picking electors, it doesn't fundamentally prevent rogue electors, they just became a rarity because most electors were rabid partisans.

You occasionally also had weird shenanigans like the Alabama Democrats in 1960 submitting a slate of 13 electors that was 8 for Uncommitted and 5 for Kennedy.

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

If you're referring to the 12th amendment, that addressed a wholly different problem with the electoral college by separating the votes for president and Vice President. But electors continued to be unbound by any popular vote in many states for quite some time after.

Nonsense!!!

Do you think 73 electors in nine different states just happened to put Jefferson and Burr on their ballots, and 64 other electors in ten different states just happened to put Adams and Pinckney on their ballots?

NOPE. 73 electors who belonged to Party A voted for Jefferson and Burr. 64 electors who belonged to Party B voted for Adams and Pinckney.

[Mr. Morden]

Some of the electors want an intelligence briefing about Trump’s ties to Russia:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-intelligence-briefing-trump-russia-232498

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Suprun is the only Republican elector to sign.