What If?

[Casper]

So we have some wanting to get the Electoral College to change their votes so that it supports the will of the People in some States over the will of the People in other States, so that the overall vote is reflected as the will of the People instead of that of the States. I think that is about right, correct me if I am wrong.

So, the Question is:
If, that effort would succeed and Hillary were declared the victory, what then? What would you do or support?

 

[Fenton]

So we have some wanting to get the Electoral College to change their votes so that it supports the will of the People in some States over the will of the People in other States, so that the overall vote is reflected as the will of the People instead of that of the States. I think that is about right, correct me if I am wrong.

So, the Question is:
If, that effort would succeed and Hillary were declared the victory, what then? What would you do or support?

You realize that would be reflecting the will of the people that live un heavily populated Cities in States like California and New York over the will of people in States across the Nation, right ??

 

[Jetboogieman]

What then?

There's no rational way to explain how that would work, lets say it did succeed by some unlawful insanity, Trump is the legitimate President by the former rules, Hillary already conceded and the Obama administration is working to transition in the Trump administration.

You would immediately have a crisis of monumental proportions, there'd simply be two parallel... I can't even continue to type this because the fallout would be so shocking it's not even worth thinking about.

America would implode.

 

[Orly?]

I'd be pretty upset.. Doubt I would act like a liberal, but it would harden me and convince my my country is not free and our elections are BS.

 

[Beaudreaux]

So we have some wanting to get the Electoral College to change their votes so that it supports the will of the People in some States over the will of the People in other States, so that the overall vote is reflected as the will of the People instead of that of the States. I think that is about right, correct me if I am wrong.

So, the Question is:
If, that effort would succeed and Hillary were declared the victory, what then? What would you do or support?

I support the US Constitution, not the whining lamenting of people that are pissed they didn't get their way or, actively working toward the usurpation of the rule of law in a power grab by those that want what you describe.

 

[Cardinal]

What then?

There's no rational way to explain how that would work, lets say it did succeed by some unlawful insanity, Trump is the legitimate President by the former rules, Hillary already conceded and the Obama administration is working to transition in the Trump administration.

You would immediately have a crisis of monumental proportions, there'd simply be two parallel... I can't even continue to type this because the fallout would be so shocking it's not even worth thinking about.

America would implode.

This is a completely unique concept to me so the learning curve will naturally be quite high. I've read that the vote would just go to the House of Representatives anyway, or that the resulting situation would delegitimize the electoral college altogether and it would be disbanded. Also, Hillary could withdraw her concession easily enough. In any case, the election on November 8 only established that she won the popular vote. What the electoral voters will do is convene on December 19 where they will be expected to vote according to the results of their respective states' popular results. To not cast a vote in such a way would make them "faithless electors" and the precedent is very rare.

There are too many ways for this to go, seemingly all of them uncontrollable and unpredictable.

edit: I would urge Democrats not to get too optimistic about this extremely hypothetical scenario. On the incredibly unlikely outcome that 37 required Republican electoral voters are turned, there are at least 6 Democratic faithless electoral.

 

[Cardinal]

You realize that would be reflecting the will of the people that live un heavily populated Cities in States like California and New York over the will of people in States across the Nation, right ??

Well since you bring it up, so what?

 

[Casper]

You realize that would be reflecting the will of the people that live un heavily populated Cities in States like California and New York over the will of people in States across the Nation, right ??

Yes I do. I am asking what if.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

What then? We'd have a different political insider for President, instead of the political insider in outsider getup. A third of the country would be furious, another third would be overjoyed, and a third of it wouldn't give a damn either way.

As for the damage on the system, that's already been addressed by JBM, who has far more knowledge of how this stuff works on a detailed level than I do. I figure his evaluation will suffice.

 

[Crovax]

I support the US Constitution, not the whining lamenting of people that are pissed they didn't get their way or, actively working toward the usurpation of the rule of law in a power grab by those that want what you describe.

The US Constitution only says the states get to choose who the electors are and how they are elected, they can not dictate how they vote. If for some ridiculous reason they chose Hillary that would be following the constitution.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The US Constitution only says the states get to choose who the electors are and how they are elected, they can not dictate how they vote. If for some ridiculous reason they chose Hillary that would be following the constitution.

No, not really. The states determine how the electors vote, not the electors. The Costitution gives the state legislatures the power, not the electors. The Constitution says that the states shall appoint the Electors in the way that their legislature says they want to do so. Which means 1) that they don't even have to be elected by the people, they can be appointed by the legislature without a vote of the people, and 2) each state's legislature has the Constitutional power to direct how they are appointed which includes any rules and/or provisions for a person to be an elector, which includes whether or not the elector is bound by state law to vote one way or another. Many states have made it state law that the people shall determine how the electors shall vote by the popular vote within the state, some with a "winner takes all" type requirement and some with a proportional type vote of the electors based on the proportional results of the popular election results within that state.

Here's what it says:

Article II, Section 1 -

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

12th Amendment -

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

 

[Crovax]

No, not really. The states determine how the electors vote, not the electors. The Costitution gives the state legislatures the power, not the electors. The Constitution says that the states shall appoint the Electors in the way that their legislature says they want to do so. Which means 1) that they don't even have to be elected by the people, they can be appointed by the legislature without a vote of the people, and 2) each state's legislature has the Constitutional power to direct how they are appointed which includes any rules and/or provisions for a person to be an elector, which includes whether or not the elector is bound by state law to vote one way or another. Many states have made it state law that the people shall determine how the electors shall vote by the popular vote within the state, some with a "winner takes all" type requirement and some with a proportional type vote of the electors based on the proportional results of the popular election results within that state.

Here's what it says:

Article II, Section 1 -

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

12th Amendment -

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

That is 100% wrong, the electors are free to vote how they wish. The SCOTUS has even affirmed this right.

 

[Greenbeard]

So, the Question is:
If, that effort would succeed and Hillary were declared the victory, what then? What would you do or support?

It would be worth it just so folks could understand they voted for the people in that room, not the president. I'm always up for a national civics lesson.

 

[Casper]

It would be worth it just so folks could understand they voted for the people in that room, not the president. I'm always up for a national civics lesson.

Problem is we seem to have to repeat the lesson every four years, are they not teaching government in high schools and colleges these days?
Not even sure some have not learned their lesson from this year.
So now we are going to get Real Change, whether Trump is the Best President ever or the Worst is to be determined, but I do believe it will be one or the other, and either way it goes it is going to be a bumpy ride.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That is 100% wrong, the electors are free to vote how they wish. The SCOTUS has even affirmed this right.

Since I am not an attorney, but I am a student of the Constitution and the SCOTUS, and given that I haven't read the SCOTUS case you're referring to, could you provide a link to a citation?

 

[NonoBadDog]

So we have some wanting to get the Electoral College to change their votes so that it supports the will of the People in some States over the will of the People in other States, so that the overall vote is reflected as the will of the People instead of that of the States. I think that is about right, correct me if I am wrong.

So, the Question is:
If, that effort would succeed and Hillary were declared the victory, what then? What would you do or support?

I think the country would have a Constitutional crisis on it's hands and possibly a revolution. I would buy two months worth of groceries (rather than one), reload a lot of ammo and stay on my mountain. I have a lot of "No Trespassing" signs all around my property.

 

[Crovax]

Since I am not an attorney, but I am a student of the Constitution and the SCOTUS, and given that I haven't read the SCOTUS case you're referring to, could you provide a link to a citation?

Ray v Blair (1952), the specific case was about a state requiring an elector to take a pledge to vote for a certain candidate. The court held that the state could in fact require the pledge but it also held that if they broke the pledge they would face no penalties as an elector has the right to elect who they wish.


Here's the relevant quote

such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college

And the full decision

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/214/case.html

 

[Greenbeard]

I think the country would have a Constitutional crisis on it's hands and possibly a revolution.

Why would the Electoral College exercising its duty to select the President constitute a Constitutional crisis?

 

[NonoBadDog]

Why would the Electoral College exercising its duty to select the President constitute a Constitutional crisis?

I don't answer idiotic questions. If you can generate an intelligent question then we can talk about it.

 

[Casper]

I think the country would have a Constitutional crisis on it's hands and possibly a revolution. I would buy two months worth of groceries (rather than one), reload a lot of ammo and stay on my mountain. I have a lot of "No Trespassing" signs all around my property.

Many others would do the same. I for one am already past that preparedness level, 6 months stock, ammo cans full, fencing, signs, lights and cameras.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Many others would do the same. I for one am already past that preparedness level, 6 months stock, ammo cans full, fencing, signs, lights and cameras.

Us also. When we run low on food we actually have three months supply. We have over 4k rounds of ammo with enough to reload another 10k. We always have a drawer full of batteries. My wife thinks I have a flashlight fetish. I have a fence that runs along the road. I don't want to run fence where I can see the property. Our house sits towards the top of the mountain. I can cover a lot of the property on the front side. It would limit my movement on the top side of the property for logging. I need two more game cams. Maybe Santa will be nice this year.

 

[Casper]

Us also. When we run low on food we actually have three months supply. We have over 4k rounds of ammo with enough to reload another 10k. We always have a drawer full of batteries. My wife thinks I have a flashlight fetish. I have a fence that runs along the road. I don't want to run fence where I can see the property. Our house sits towards the top of the mountain. I can cover a lot of the property on the front side. It would limit my movement on the top side of the property for logging. I need two more game cams. Maybe Santa will be nice this year.

Excellent. If you keep dropping clues, you know like ad with a picture circled and five stars left where Santa might see it. You've got to work it so there is no missing your "I just gotta have". If that does not begging might be the best way to go.:lamo
Don't laugh, got my last three guns that way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Ray v Blair (1952), the specific case was about a state requiring an elector to take a pledge to vote for a certain candidate. The court held that the state could in fact require the pledge but it also held that if they broke the pledge they would face no penalties as an elector has the right to elect who they wish.


Here's the relevant quote



And the full decision

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/214/case.html

Thank you.

It would appear that you inadvertently left off a few key words that preceded the quotation from the riling that you posted in support of your position. Those words being - "However, even if ..." The entire passage reads as: "However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional."

After further research on my own, I have found that the case you cited above dealt only with states/political parties requiring a pledge from the electors, and nothing else. Hence the language in the opinion, that I pointed out above, being open ended by stating "even if" so as not to be confused with coming down either way on the first part of that passage, any penalty for not voting in accordance with the pledge taken - a faithless elector.

There are 29 states with laws against faithless electors with varying forms and levels of punishment:

 

[Crovax]

Thank you.

It would appear that you inadvertently left off a few key words that preceded the quotation from the riling that you posted in support of your position. Those words being - "However, even if ..." The entire passage reads as: "However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional."

After further research on my own, I have found that the case you cited above dealt only with states/political parties requiring a pledge from the electors, and nothing else. Hence the language in the opinion, that I pointed out above, being open ended by stating "even if" so as not to be confused with coming down either way on the first part of that passage, any penalty for not voting in accordance with the pledge taken - a faithless elector.

There are 29 states with laws against faithless electors with varying forms and levels of punishment:

You apparently missed the part in the SCOTUS ruling where it claimed the pledges were unenforceable. There have been faithless electors before but none have ever been charged under those laws. It's like the flag code, clearly unconstitutional but until you try to punish someone for them they get to stay on the books.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You apparently missed the part in the SCOTUS ruling where it claimed the pledges were unenforceable. There have been faithless electors before but none have ever been charged under those laws. It's like the flag code, clearly unconstitutional but until you try to punish someone for them they get to stay on the books.

I read the entire document/ruling that you linked for me. Thank you again for that. I didn't miss anything. You said way back when in this thread that I was wrong. I said that it was possible that I was wrong, and asked you to provide me with a citation for me to educate myself. You gave me a link to a SCOTUS case, which I read, and then went further and did more research on my own. I posted a reply to you showing part of my additional research (the part that was cogent to our discussion) which you replied to above, and I disagree with your assumptions and analogy. I would agree, however, that we don't know how the SCOTUS would rule, should an Elector be prosecuted under any of the 29 states where laws do exist.