Six electors have vowed to cast ballots against their state’s popular vote to narrow Trump’s Electoral College win


#1

They call themselves “The Hamilton Electors.”
The chances seem slim, but…there is a chance Trump’s win will be…*.trumped. *
I can already see who’s going to play them in the film…

At least six electors — members of the Electoral College whose votes actually elect the President — have vowed to cast ballots that don’t align with the popular vote results of their states, Politico reported Tuesday.
If they carry out their intentions — in effect, becoming “faithless electors” — they would narrow Donald Trump’s margin-of-victory in the Electoral College over Hillary Clinton.
One elector, Michael Baca said in a statement that he wouldn’t vote for Trump.
“The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense, and I think we must do all that we can to ensure that we have a Reasonable Republican candidate who shares our American values,” he said.
Added elector Bret Chiafalo, who along with Baca is part of a small group called Hamilton Electors, “All we’re trying to do is honor what the Founding Fathers gave us.”

nydailynews.com/news/politics/members-vow-cast-electoral-college-votes-trump-article-1.2883695

.


#2

What a farce!


#3

As much as I loathe Donald Trump, and as terrified as I am about the prospect of four years with him as President, I think this would be an exceedingly bad thing, if this group could line up enough electors to deny Trump the presidency.

I guess it would be constitutional, but the resulting strife and division in the nation would be far, far worse than whatever damage Trump may do as president.

I really, really hope it doesn’t happen. I don’t think it will (but then I thought Trump would lose the election, and I was wrong about that).


#4

I agree with your assessment. If people think the division is bad now, it would be disastrous, perhaps fatal damage that would be done to the fabric of the nation if this situation came to fruition. There would be violence, perhaps even an outright uprising by militia groups. And I’m not sure I would necessarily blame them.


#5

I know what you mean.
And his supporters are the ones who are more likely to be, um, armed?

But.
Trump supporters have been saying for two weeks that voters must accept these results because they were reached fair and square, in a way that our electoral system is set up.

At the same time, our system is *also *set up for these electors to have the right to also cast their ballots as they see fit. So if enough do cast their ballots against him and he does not become president…then, voters should accept that, too…because that is following rules, laws, and electoral protocol as well.

If these electors truly feel he is unfit to be president, they must vote with their belief, knowledge, and conscience, right?

.


#6

Same here–I detest the man, I think he has no business being president…but I could see things going really badly if this course of action happened, even if it is constitutional. Even if riots are somehow avoided, I could see this getting tied up in court for years, because I don’t doubt he’d bring up a lawsuit on this.

I don’t think it would happen either, but if there’s one thing this entire election has taught me, it’s never assume the ‘out of the blue’ won’t happen–because it has been this time 'round.


#7

Will it make a difference if they do this? Will it cause Trump to lose the election?


#8

This is even worse than the lunatics calling for an end to the electoral system entirely. We might as well not let the public vote at all and just have the electors vote, if this is how they’re going to do things. Either dump the electoral college (which is a truly terrible idea) and do a popular vote, or change the law to bind electors to the voting outcomes of their states.

I also don’t think the Democrats are thinking this through. Next time a Dem wins, what happens when the right-leaning electors remember 2016 and just ignore their states?


#9

Why do you think that dumping the electoral college would be a bad idea? Personally, I am for getting rid of the electoral college but if you have a good reason why we shouldn’t then I might change my mind.


#10

Yes, it is indeed possible.

If enough electors whose states were a Trump-majority choose to vote against him when they cast their ballots on Dec 19th, he will not reach the 270 electoral votes needed to be president.

They don’t even have to vote for Hillary…they can vote for a third party member, or abstain. And then the decision is left to the House of Rep, I think it says.

If they do vote for Hillary and she reaches the 270 votes…then* she* will be president. I think.

.


#11

37 electors would have to vote against Trump for this to have an effect. I don’t feel like having even 1 of them go against the popular vote of their state will be a good idea though. It would set a very bad precedent.


#12

Rural voters would be totally irrelevant. The whole point was to ensure that everyone’s concerns have merit and are represented. A popular vote would mean that candidates wouldn’t have to care about 80% of the country because only the major population centers would matter. NY and CA would decide elections for the other 48 states.


#13

Alright, I looked into this and this was click bait. These aren’t Trump electors, these were former Bernie supporters who are mandated to vote for Hillary. They aren’t pulling votes from Clinton they are trying to cause “awareness” by voting against the popular vote.

If they do anything, it’s just gonna take Clinton’s electoral votes. Still rather they didn’t even though she lost, as that’s ridiculous.


#14

I don’t think these Electoral Voters in question are necessarily Democrats. Did the article say that? I think they are Republicans.

Besides, the issue here isn’t for one party to win. The issue is way beyond that, way bigger. This is making sure someone who many think is seriously unfit does not take office. That is why this rule was put into place and is taken so seriously, it is rarely–if ever-- used.

If Democrats saw one of their own win the electoral vote and they thought he or she was unfit…they would probably cast their ballot against that person as well.

For the good of the whole.

.


#15

Just for the sake of speculation. …

Say enough electors jump on board and abstain from voting.

If it’s then up to the house, who would we expect to be appointed as president ?

Pence ? Rubio ? Surely with a republican house it will be a Republican.


#16

Not sure what you mean.
Michael Baca is an Electoral College Voter for Colorado…Bret Chiafalo is an Electoral College Voter for Washington. Those are two of the current six.

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/meet-the-hamilton-electors-hoping-for-an-electoral-college-revolt/508433/

.


#17

Hillary won the electoral votes for those two state, so they are mandated to vote for Hillary. You chose a bad source.

dailycaller.com/2016/11/22/sanders-electors-vow-to-vote-against-clinton-in-wild-attempt-to-keep-trump-from-white-house/


#18

But these are indeed Electoral College Voters, are they not? Of the group that votes on December 19th? I think yes.

.


#19

You don’t seem to be understanding. When a candidate wins the popular vote in a state on election day, they get a certain amount of electoral votes. For example, Trump won Texas, giving him 38 electoral votes. Clinton won Colorado and Washington, so she got all of the electoral votes in the two states.

These two electors are bound to Clinton as they are electors for two states that Clinton won. Had these men been from Texas, they would be bound to Trump, but that’s not the case. Therefore, if these men choose to vote against their states popular vote, they would not be effecting Trump, as they aren’t part of the 306 electors that are bound to him, instead they are part of the 232 electors that are bound to Clinton.


#20

Yes.
I get that.
But they are also trying to convince the Trump-bound voters to vote against their state’s win. And if Trump gets less than 270 votes, he cannot be president.
(Right? I grew up in Canada, so I’m new at this…).

Here…NYPost is more accurate that NYDaily News:

*At least six Democrats on the Electoral College are prepared to be “faithless electors” by abandoning Hillary Clinton to vote for a Republican other than Donald Trump — in hopes GOP electors will join them to keep the president-elect under the 270 votes he’ll need to enter the White House.
The Democrats are trying to persuade Republicans to ignore their oaths and ditch Trump, who is expected to end up with 307 electoral votes, according to Politico.
*

nypost.com/2016/11/22/several-electoral-college-democrats-plan-to-vote-against-trump/

.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.