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

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

To be clear, these folks seem to be aware that convincing enough Trump electors to defect to swing the election is probably hopeless.  Their tactic is more aimed at convincing enough Clinton electors to defect to Sanders or someone else that it draws national media attention to the stupidity of the electoral college.

[Mr. Morden]

So up to seven Clinton electors are going to defect from Clinton as a form of protest against Trump?:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/faithless-electors-electoral-college-donald-trump

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

So 4 Colorado electors are talking about defecting from Clinton?  What if it was 5 (a majority of the state's delegation), and they all voted for the same person (who is neither Clinton nor Trump)?  How would Colorado then be colored on the maps? 

[Mr. Morden]

I think we can all agree Electoral College is very unlikely to go.

1. Smaller states would strongly oppose the move.
2. Major swing states would oppose the move.
3. At the end of a day both parties probably prefeers to play in current setup (concentrate on swing state) than wage a difficult nationwide campaign.

The electoral college will technically remain intact, but the NPVIC would make it irrelevant.  And I don't think it's impossible for it to pass via referendum in enough states where it can't get through the legislature.  It's already been passed via the normal legislative process in states totalling 165 electoral votes, so 105 more to go.

[Mr. Morden]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

Unlike the NPVIC though, eliminating electors would actually require a constitutional amendment, right?  Seems highly unlikely that we'll see such an amendment any time soon.  The NPVIC passing seems far more likely to me than an amendment along the lines that you're suggesting.

[Mr. Morden]

While I obviously support abolishing the electoral college, we could start by getting rid of electors and just making it a numerical count. Surely we could have widespread agreement from both parties and practically every state that Faithless Electors are a bad thing.

Unlike the NPVIC though, eliminating electors would actually require a constitutional amendment, right?  Seems highly unlikely that we'll see such an amendment any time soon.  The NPVIC passing seems far more likely to me than an amendment along the lines that you're suggesting.

While I guess some Congressmen could vote against such an amendment just out of spite or hate, I can't imagine that an amendment banning faithless electors could possibly fail in Congress, or among the states. How could anyone argue for keeping them in a way that would sway over 1/3 of Congress?

I mean it's highly unlikely to pass because of apathy.  Unless/until an elected president is denied the presidency because of faithless electors, hardly anyone will care about it.  So I don't think that many state legislatures are going to bother bringing it up for a vote.

[Mr. Morden]

I suppose RNC would have to designate a replacement candidate to receive Trump's evs (likely Pence).

I assume Pence would get it.  Though I suppose the Trump electors aren't bound by the RNC's decision.  They could decide amongst themselves on a replacement candidate.

And we'd also have a very short VP search by Pence, to determine who the electors should vote for for VP.

[Mr. Morden]

This would have been really interesting if Clinton had won both MI and PA while Trump still held on to WI.  That would be Trump 270 - Clinton 268 before any electoral college defections, and we would have had an interesting waiting period this month, seeing if any Trump electors go faithless.

[Mr. Morden]

Suprun (the Texas faithless elector) claims there will be other Republican faithless electors, and that they simply haven't outed themselves publicly yet:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309622-gop-elector-not-all-of-us-are-voting-for-trump

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.

[Mr. Morden]

Russians throwing their voice into the cacophonous noise of an election...meh, so what?  Is there something inherently threatening about Russian fake news than say, John Harwood's fake news?

Hacking into the computers of American politicians and releasing material taken from those hacks is simply "throwing their voice into the cacophonous noise of an election"?

[Mr. Morden]

There are now 29 electors who want an intelligence briefing....but Suprun is still the only Republican among them:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-members-intel-briefing-232554

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-electors-lessig-232598

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Here is a list at what time each state votes on Monday and whether faithless electors are allowed.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/electoral-college-voting-unfold-monday-102405396.html?client=safari

Ftr, I'll start an "electoral college vote live commentary thread" on Sunday night, so we can track the results on Monday.