The obligatory “the electors should vote for Hillary” articles
Here’s one by law prof Lawrence Lessig in the WaPo, and here’s some backup from Martin Longman in the Washington Monthly, with a bit of quibbling on the details.
What are these articles about? After all, it’s pretty much a certainty that there won’t be a revolt by an enormous group of rogue electors. And it’s pretty much a given that most electors have always been free to go their own way (except in the states that forbid them to do so, although Longman seems to think those laws forcing them to comply with their state’s decision wouldn’t stand up in court—see more on that question here).
Electors ordinarily comply with the wishes of their states, and certainly not enough of them have ever defied those wishes to make a particle of difference. The phenomenon is known as that of the “faithless elector”:
Despite 157 instances of faithlessness as of 2015, faithless electors have not yet affected the results or ultimate outcome of any other election for President and Vice President of the United States.
The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy itself. American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue set out to harm the minority rather than work for the benefit of all citizens…
Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced. In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector’s vote is void, though no state has yet had cause to enforce such a provision.
As a commenter to the Longman article points out:
First, the party that wins the state sends its electors to the electoral college, so you’d be asking Republicans to reject their own victor, and I don’t think there’s much hope of that happening. Secondly, doing this would break the system, and would justify relatively extreme counterreaction by Trump supporters. Whether that would rise to level of civil war or not, I do not know, although it is certainly the sort of thing that would have set off a civil war during Roman history.
Not gonna happen, and I submit that the authors of both articles know it’s not gonna happen. So what’s the point of writing them? To stir up anger, hope, and turmoil among Democrats who are eager to delegitimize Trump as president, and also to discredit the institution of the Electoral College, which liberals and leftists tend to believe works against them and the pure democracy they believe would favor them.
That same commenter I already quoted went on to say that “the electoral college is a horrible institution with no redeeming values, and the system is now broken.” That’s a common point of view among Democrats, and it’s absurd. The system is not broken and the Founders did not intend it to be a pure democracy.
The Electoral College was meant to do exactly what it has done: keep a few large population centers from dominating a national election and protect the power of the states as entities. Those who want to abolish the Electoral College should be consistent and abolish the Senate as well, because it is run on a very similar philosophy. Actually, the Senate is even more non-representative of population density than the Electoral College, since in the Senate each state is given exactly the same number of senators (offset by the House, run on the opposite lines), whereas the number of electors from each state in the Electoral College represents a sort of compromise between equality for states and balancing their power along the lines of their actual populations.
Don’t push too hard on this point. There are a lot of people who would like to abolish the Senate.
This is the stupidest idea going. Given the gains of Reps on the state level, why would people chosen by the state party want to stage a fruitless rebellion and lose their standing in their state.
Lessig sounds like a law prof on the Obama level.
“The Electoral College was meant to do exactly what it has done.”
Yes, it is exactly cases such as Trump vs. Clinton or Bush vs. Gore where, despite all the boo-hooing, the electoral college has WORKED!
If some think it only works when the most popular, nationally that is, president is elected then they really don’t understand the electoral college – and I blame left-leaning educators for that.
Trump did win the popular vote – just not on a national scale; he won the popular vote state by state which is how it should work and how it does work. (If Maine and Nebraska want to “dilute” their votes whom am I to tell them not to?)
While the professors are looking for See here:
Republican electors to jump ship and go for Hillary, they are actually facing a couple of faithless Democrat electors in Washington state. Those two want to cast their votes for Bernie.
For which, see here:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hes-a-state-democratic-elector-but-robert-satiacum-says-he-wont-vote-for-clinton/
The day that “faithless electors” unilaterally decide the election of the President is the day they end the republic and make America a pure democracy.
Which is the point of these articles, to build momentum in a movement to make the election of the President a direct vote, i.e. a popularity contest.
The wailing of their women is music to my ears.
Hey, lefties, let’s make a deal:
– we agree to do away with the Electoral College and go to a national popular vote for President of USA
* when and only when *
– you-all agree to cooperate in *fully* (and regularly) cleansing the voter rolls of *all* cemetery residents and illegal voters.
Deal?
Sincerely,
M J R
Before going out on this limb, I should probably consult Michael Barone’s books, but here goes.
Despite the intent of the electoral college system, for many years, Democrats have so dominated New York, California, Illinois, and a few other high-population states, that they start every election by putting Republicans in a deep hole.
Democrats are free to build a strategy to achieve 270 electoral votes, without committing any time or resources to their sure-thing states. Usually they can pour everything into winning the rust belt and a few other states, and the election is over.
On the other hand, Republican sure-things are limited to a small number of thinly populated states in the Great Plains. To win, they need to spread campaign time and resources all over the country — excepting New York, California, and Illinois. This is obviously a more difficult strategy.
I wrote this off the top of my head, without consulting any data or maps. Still, I think the general idea is right. In saying so, I’m not denying that the purpose of the electoral college is still in force, but I would argue that the modern electoral map has given Democrats a running start, and they have little reason to complain about the electoral college.
Cornflour,
I don’t think the Democrats’ edge really comes from having California, New York, and Illinois locked up, and it really doesn’t even come from adding NJ, CT, MA, DE, DC, VT, MD, WA, HI, and OR to that list. It came from having MI, PA, and in the last three elections, NV, VA and CO.
I guess what I am saying is that the parties have largely battled each other in the exact same states over and over, with every Republican making stab at PA and MI, but only Trump was able to break through- which is what had to happen, or the Republican Party was/is going to be locked out of the White House.
I predict there will be zero Trump electoral defections, and probably less than 4 defectors from Clinton.
We are witnessing the bargaining stage of grief. I’m awaiting their depression stage…
Right. I think there are several things going on here —
– grief and disbelief at the election’s outcome;
– fury at the thought that some Democrat electors might defect — and a futile attempt to contain the damage by suggesting/demanding that the Other Side do the same (rosta ruck)…
– wishful thinking for the sweet sake of wishful thinking.
This can be considered in the same category as the attempts to force a vote recount (but only in the areas that might help Hillary, natch). It’s desperation, and unless Trump is truly asleep at the switch, it won’t work.
I note that a very important reason to keep the electoral college has not been mentioned:
To ensure that vote fraud does NOT cross state lines. I shudder to think of how many fraudulent votes would be cast in urban areas if every vote was tallied at the national level (I won’t name the party involved).
Deal?
Sincerely,
M J R
A loser’s deal, since it wouldn’t include computer hack/cracks or immigrant votes.