November 27, 2016 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm #618737
Suppose the Electoral College has its meeting, and a few of the “Trump” Electors lawfully vote for Hillary, and Hillary wins the actual vote of Electors in the Electoral College. What, if anything, should Trump supporters do?November 27, 2016 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #1203294
Trump supporters should then dispute the electoral college vote in the United States House of Representatives, who has the constitutional duty to count they vote and the constitutional right to adjudicate disputes of the electoral vote. Being a majority of states have a Republican majority in the House, Trump will almost certainly prevail.
The Senate will do the same regarding resolving a disputed electoral vote for the office of Vice President.November 27, 2016 3:32 pm at 3:32 pm #1203295
Re Joseph’s first comment: Admittedly, my hypothetical question did not say so explicitly, but my unstated assumption was that the House of Representatives confirms the pro-Hillary vote of the Electoral College.
Talk amongst yourselves.November 27, 2016 3:42 pm at 3:42 pm #1203296
A correction to above: if a states electoral vote is disputed, both the House and Senate needs to vote on the dispute.
Another possibility: if Republicans control the state where the unfaithful elector failed to vote for Trump as he should, the state itself could find a mechanism to nevertheless certify their full electoral vote for Trump, despite the unfaithful vote, before sending the certified results to Congress. At least some states have a law that they can replace an unfaithful elector immediately if he doesn’t vote as he pledged, with another elector who will. Other states might be able to do the same even without such a specific State law.November 27, 2016 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #1203297
Let me rephrase my question for the benefit of Joseph: Suppose Hillary Clinton is lawfully sworn in as president on January 20, 2017. What should/would/will Trump supporters do?November 27, 2016 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #1203298
Then one or both houses of Congress should refuse to pass *any* legislation that Hillary supports and should only pass legislation she is diabolically opposed to. If she vetoes, the Federal government closes down for two or four years and the public attributes it to her vetoes – and the government saves two or four years of costs for unnecessary government. (Critical functions remain open by existing law.)November 27, 2016 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #1203299
Why would she be diabolically opposed to anything?November 27, 2016 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #1203300
My guess is Trump and supporters will suddenly abandon their love of the Electoral college and demand that the will of the people be upheld (though not the majority obviously only the will of the majority in swing states)
“At least some states have a law that they can replace an unfaithful elector immediately if he doesn’t vote as he pledged, with another elector who will”
Is that true? Would you mind citing a source? I was under the impression that (some) states had laws requiring electors to vote for their pledged candidate, but their was nothing they can do to stop them. And even those regarding those laws (which are mostly small fines) it is unclear how constitutional they areNovember 27, 2016 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #1203301
ubiq, In North Carolina, for example, it is codified in state law that a faithless elector is automatically considered to have resigned and is immediately replaced with another elector who agrees to vote as the state popular vote dictated.November 28, 2016 12:35 am at 12:35 am #1203302akupermaParticipant
The electors are free under the constitution to vote for anyone they choose. They could elect Romney or Kerry. Indeed, they could probably elect you if you are over 35 and a natural born citizen of the USA.
Electors are usually well established political leaders in their home states, and are highly unlikely to betray their party.November 28, 2016 1:26 am at 1:26 am #1203303LightbriteParticipant
Get new bumper stickers?November 28, 2016 1:55 am at 1:55 am #1203304
I couldnt find anything about NC but apparently in MI and MN that is the case.
Interestingly in Ray v Blair the court wrote regarding states requiring a PLEDGE from electors as to whom they would vote for
It would seem that under the constitution electors can vote for whomever they want as akuperma says. In spite of the states that have laws against it. Though is has never been challenged in courtNovember 28, 2016 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #1203305–Participant
Joseph, Once selected as an elector any interference from the state on the elector’s vote would be subject to federal laws.November 28, 2016 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #1203306
Dash-: I believe you’re mistaken. The Constitution leaves the entire selection process (including deselecting due to death, resignation or other reasons) of electors entirely in the hands of, and at the discretion of, the states. The state selects their own electors via whatever process they choose, each state conducts their electoral college vote separately in each of their state capitals and each state’s Secretary of State (or equivalent position) certifies the results of their electoral vote directly to Congress.November 28, 2016 5:16 pm at 5:16 pm #1203307
And there I was thinking you were a chasid of Scalia’s. He would be ashamed at you interpreting the constitution’s intent. The constitution simply does not say what you are saying.
Agin though this has never been determined in court.November 28, 2016 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #1203308
ubiq: Precisely. And as Scalia would tell you, if the Constitution doesn’t address an issue, what happens? It’s left up to the States to decide!! The Constitution itself states as such.
Additionally, there is no current federal law purporting to preclude the states from deselecting an elector they’ve previously appointed.November 28, 2016 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1203309
I grant you that Scalia was not super consistent in his aplication of his principle (bush V Gore comes to mind) wouldnt what uopu suggest get rid of half the purpose of electors. The constituion goes into detai labout how the electoras vote both in the original and then in the 12th amendment. If states can decide as they see fit and limit the electors, none of that is neccesary. Say the poular vote in NY goes to Hillary so hillary gets 33 “points” why the need for electors to meet at vote if their vote can be controlled by stateNovember 29, 2016 2:38 am at 2:38 am #1203310
I still don’t see why you think Hillary Clinton is the Devil, Joseph.November 29, 2016 4:17 am at 4:17 am #1203311November 29, 2016 4:43 am at 4:43 am #1203312
probably cuz she’s a female (who wants to be president) and a democrat.November 29, 2016 5:03 am at 5:03 am #1203313
She can’t be the Wicked Witch and the Devil.November 29, 2016 5:03 am at 5:03 am #1203314LightbriteParticipant
LU +1November 29, 2016 5:31 am at 5:31 am #1203315
There’s no reason given there.November 29, 2016 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #1203316
Put another way. The constitution doesnt say who we have to vote for. I’m sure Scalia (and probably yourself as well) would agree the State cant pass a law saying we all have to vote for candidate X. Although the constitution doesn’t explicitly say otherwise, it is obvious that it is not “voting” if you are forced to choose someone specific. ditto for the electors if a state forces them to vote for a candidate it is hard to see how that can be called votingNovember 29, 2016 3:20 pm at 3:20 pm #1203317
I agree that the States cannot punish (i.e. fine or jail) an elector for voting for a candidate other than he pledged to. And existing state laws enacting a penalty are unconstitutional and unenforceable. But the Constitution gives the states the right to determine WHO is or isn’t an elector. And the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from unappointing an elector they’ve previously appointed and assigning someone else as elector in his stead.November 29, 2016 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #1203318
Thanks, got it.
Though you dont consider what you describe as contradicting the very definition of “vote”
as in “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot…”
If an Elector gets unappointed if he chooses the “wrong” candidate, I dont really see how that fits with “The Electors shall… vote…”November 29, 2016 4:29 pm at 4:29 pm #1203319
“She can’t be the Wicked Witch and the Devil.’
I think the devil is a xian concept, so it may be avoda zara. However, witches are mentioned in the Torah. (although it’s assur to be one).November 29, 2016 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #1203320
Still the only way to be “diabolically opposed” to something.November 29, 2016 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #1203321
LB – despite my semi-sarcastic tone, I don’t necessarily disagree. I don’t have a definite opinion myself, but I hear the ‘taina’.November 29, 2016 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #1203322
“Still the only way to be “diabolically opposed” to something.”
why – is diabolically from the lashon of devil, or are you referring to something else?December 19, 2016 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #1203323
ubiq, so far at least three Democrat electors, in several states, who attempted to vote for someone other than Clinton, were immediately replaced with an alternate elector who voted for Clinton. And the original electors vote didn’t count.
And Clinton lost more electors than Trump (who only lost two to faithless electors.)December 20, 2016 7:05 am at 7:05 am #1203324WinnieThePoohParticipant
“having the qualities of a devil; devilish; fiendish; outrageously wicked”
origin of devil:December 20, 2016 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm #1203325
that doesnt mean its constitutional
If I say you can vote on your favorite ice cream flavor but if you vote for anything other than vanilla your vote is disqualified, is that called “voting”
I freely admit I am no legal scholar. but I think by definition to “vote” means to choose between two or more options
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.