2016 electoral college voting **live commentary thread**

[America Needs R'hllor]

I think it's the first time presidential electoral votes went to:

A woman
A Native American
A Jew
Ron Paul!!!11

[SteveRogers]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

You're describing what we've de facto morphed the system into, not the way in which it was designed. It wasn't intended to just be a rubber stamp like it is now. Most states didn't even have a popular vote initially.

By 1796 (third election) electors were already being elected by parties. By 1800, 137 of 138 electors voted for either Jefferson and Burr; or Adams and Pinckney.

This resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, which went to the House of Representatives where the lame duck Federalists tried to scheme to elect Burr as President. It was realized that the initial system was not working and the 12th Amendment was added. It recognized that electors were being chosen based on parties.

It is false that most states did not have a popular vote initially. In the first election 6 of the 10 states chose their electors by popular vote, including the Big 3 most associated with the Revolution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 64% of the Washington electors were popularly elected.

Yes, the 12th Amendment was designed to accommodate the reality that political parties were an inescapable part of the electoral process. But that amendment didn't change the basic setup which was that the electoral college was designed to select living, breathing human beings to cast the electoral votes. The state gets to choose the method of appointing its electors, and having the parties choose their slate ensures that the electors will almost always vote for the party nominee who wins the state's electoral vote, but the state is still limited to selecting the person, not the person's vote. And once the state has appointed its electors, the Constitution doesn't give a state the power to un-appoint them if they do something the state doesn't like any more than it gave the state the power to recall Senators.

I agree that combining the Constitutionally mandated electoral college with a statewide popular vote allows for absurd results, but such is the reality until the electoral college is repealed.

[emailking]

So I assume this means that Powell got the second most electoral votes of any African-American in history (after Obama)?

Yeah, they're the only African Americans to ever receive electoral votes.

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, 5-10 rogue electors is what I thought.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think it's the first time presidential electoral votes went to:

A woman
A Native American
A Jew
Ron Paul!!!11

Yup, it probably is. In 1972, a Jewish woman got a vote for VP, predating Ferraro, Lieberman, and Palin.

[Klartext89]

Look who nailed it ;-)

My prediction is that there will be more faithless Clinton electors than Trump ones.

And in a few hours Chris Soprun (or how this joke of a man is written) will see his 15 minutes of attention end forever. But I'm sure it will be enough to run for office as a Democrat in 2018 - with a big amount of media coverage only to lose in the Dem Primary.

[Pandaguineapig]

Look who nailed it ;-)

My prediction is that there will be more faithless Clinton electors than Trump ones.

And in a few hours Chris Soprun (or how this joke of a man is written) will see his 15 minutes of attention end forever. But I'm sure it will be enough to run for office as a Democrat in 2018 - with a big amount of media coverage only to lose in the Dem Primary.

That was to be expected most of these "Hamilton" electors were democrats who couldn't accept that Trump won. The only republican defections were the one guy looking for attention and a libertarian who voted for Ron Paul

[Klartext89]

Look who nailed it ;-)

My prediction is that there will be more faithless Clinton electors than Trump ones.

And in a few hours Chris Soprun (or how this joke of a man is written) will see his 15 minutes of attention end forever. But I'm sure it will be enough to run for office as a Democrat in 2018 - with a big amount of media coverage only to lose in the Dem Primary.

That was to be expected most of these "Hamilton" electors were democrats who couldn't accept that Trump won. The only republican defections were the one guy looking for attention and a libertarian who voted for Ron Paul

Correct.

Isn't it funny that butthurt Keith Olbermann, who was whining for 8 years about "Republicans delegitimizing Obama" calls to delegitimize Trump...

[Klartext89]

Everyone should watch:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/19/pennsylvania_elector_protesters_have_been_lied_to_told_if_they_raise_hell_they_wil_get_what_they_want.html

Pennsylvania elector Ash Khare discusses Monday's Electoral College vote.

 "Protesters are nice people," he said. "They have been given a raw bill of goods that if you go and raise hell and do these things, people will change their vote. They don't understand us. I have received over 70,000 emails, over 5,000 letters, 500 phone calls at all times of day and night. I tell them all I am not going to change my mind. I received a letter from a seven year old child, saying, 'I am scared of Trump.' How can a seven year old child be afraid of Trump? What does he know about Trump? I received a letter and phone call from this lady who said her father was a Holocaust survivor and she is scared. Lady! What do you want me to do? Give me a break."


AMEN!

[jimrtex]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

You're describing what we've de facto morphed the system into, not the way in which it was designed. It wasn't intended to just be a rubber stamp like it is now. Most states didn't even have a popular vote initially.

By 1796 (third election) electors were already being elected by parties. By 1800, 137 of 138 electors voted for either Jefferson and Burr; or Adams and Pinckney.

This resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, which went to the House of Representatives where the lame duck Federalists tried to scheme to elect Burr as President. It was realized that the initial system was not working and the 12th Amendment was added. It recognized that electors were being chosen based on parties.

It is false that most states did not have a popular vote initially. In the first election 6 of the 10 states chose their electors by popular vote, including the Big 3 most associated with the Revolution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 64% of the Washington electors were popularly elected.

Yes, the 12th Amendment was designed to accommodate the reality that political parties were an inescapable part of the electoral process. But that amendment didn't change the basic setup which was that the electoral college was designed to select living, breathing human beings to cast the electoral votes. The state gets to choose the method of appointing its electors, and having the parties choose their slate ensures that the electors will almost always vote for the party nominee who wins the state's electoral vote, but the state is still limited to selecting the person, not the person's vote. And once the state has appointed its electors, the Constitution doesn't give a state the power to un-appoint them if they do something the state doesn't like any more than it gave the state the power to recall Senators.

I agree that combining the Constitutionally mandated electoral college with a statewide popular vote allows for absurd results, but such is the reality until the electoral college is repealed.

Colorado statute says a vacancy results if an elector is deceased, absent, or refuses to act.

If an elector dies or is absent, they are not un-appointed. They are replaced.

If an elector was present, but proceeded to ride a bicycle around the chamber, presumably you would have no problem with their replacement. If someone refused to cast a ballot or cast a blank ballot you presumably would have no problem with their replacement, since their action is in violation of the 12th Amendment.

So we are down to a quite narrow issue whether voting in contravention of state law, and their oath of office is a refusal to act.

Colorado permits voters to appoint the electors. Colorado could lose representation in Congress if voters are disenfranchised. The Democratic Party required the electors to pledge that they would vote for the presidential candidates of the party. Had they not executed that pledge, they would not have been chosen electors. If there is no surety that they would vote for Clinton and Kaine then voters would have been less likely to vote for them. And if they were permitted to disregard their pledge, then they would in effect be disenfranchising voters who expected them to vote for Clinton and Kaine.

Senators are federal officers. Presidential electors are state officers. It is within the power of the State to remove or recall state officials who fail to comply with state laws.

Congress in January, will have an opportunity to count or not count the electoral votes from Colorado.

[jimrtex]

30th Colorado College of Electors

[emailking]

If someone refused to cast a ballot or cast a blank ballot you presumably would have no problem with their replacement, since their action is in violation of the 12th Amendment.

Well that's happened before actually, in DC in 2000, and it was accepted.

Colorado permits voters to appoint the electors. Colorado could lose representation in Congress if voters are disenfranchised. The Democratic Party required the electors to pledge that they would vote for the presidential candidates of the party. Had they not executed that pledge, they would not have been chosen electors. If there is no surety that they would vote for Clinton and Kaine then voters would have been less likely to vote for them. And if they were permitted to disregard their pledge, then they would in effect be disenfranchising voters who expected them to vote for Clinton and Kaine.

I mean, I think you make a good argument why maybe the electoral college should be abolished or the electoral votes should be automatic without electors, but that doesn't make these faithless elector laws any less unconstitutional as it stands.

[wolfsblood07]

Bernie Sanders got robbed of electoral votes.

[cwt]

Bernie Sanders got robbed of electoral votes.

As a Washingtonian, I agree. At least Sanders won our caucus. Nobody voted for Colin Powell.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Bernie Sanders got robbed of electoral votes.

As a Washingtonian, I agree. At least Sanders won our caucus. Nobody voted for Colin Powell.

Well 25 people in Vermont voted for him, https://vtelectionresults.sec.state.vt.us/Index.html#/federal.

[jimrtex]

If someone refused to cast a ballot or cast a blank ballot you presumably would have no problem with their replacement, since their action is in violation of the 12th Amendment.

Well that's happened before actually, in DC in 2000, and it was accepted.

Did the District have a law regarding faithless electors? In the past, there have been vacancies when an elector did not show up, and there were no state laws to permit replacement.

Congress likely does not have any power to force a State (or D.C.) to participate.

Colorado permits voters to appoint the electors. Colorado could lose representation in Congress if voters are disenfranchised. The Democratic Party required the electors to pledge that they would vote for the presidential candidates of the party. Had they not executed that pledge, they would not have been chosen electors. If there is no surety that they would vote for Clinton and Kaine then voters would have been less likely to vote for them. And if they were permitted to disregard their pledge, then they would in effect be disenfranchising voters who expected them to vote for Clinton and Kaine.

I mean, I think you make a good argument why maybe the electoral college should be abolished or the electoral votes should be automatic without electors, but that doesn't make these faithless elector laws any less unconstitutional as it stands.

There is model legislation offered by the NCSL with regard to faithless electors. Surely it would not be facially unconstitutional.

The only possible injury that the faithless electors might suffer is that they do not have an opportunity to be elected on a honest representation of their intentions. States should permit slates of uncommitted electors, who do not list presidential and vice presidential candidates.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's the info about the Texas elector who voted for Paul:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/20/the-identity-of-the-faithless-elector-who-voted-for-ron-paul-and-why-he-did-it-has-been-revealed/

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Texas is such a low energy state.

[emailking]

I was more interested in why he voted for Fiorina for VP (assuming it's the same guy). I like the analogy with 300 though.

[The Other Castro]

Interesting tidbit: Ron Paul is now the oldest person ever to get an electoral vote.

[justfollowingtheelections]

An incredible speech by the Maine elector that voted for Bernie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mPNSty71_w