It should be no shock to anyone if the Electoral College elects someone other than Trump

[mtnsnake]

In fact, with circumstances as they are, it should be EXPECTED of them to elect someone else.

One of the main reasons that the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College was to make sure that the country didn't fall into the hands of anyone who was unqualified to hold the office of president or to anyone who has shown signs of acting like a tyrant, regardless of whether or not that person won the popular vote of that any particular state. IOW, the electors of each state have the power to override the popular vote of that state if the elector feels the winner of that state is unworthy to hold the office of president, right?

In regards to the election process, here is what Alexander Hamilton had to say about it in the Federalist Papers:

Snip:

"All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68

So....it seems that one of the primary reasons the Electoral College was formed was to prevent irrational people like Donald Trump from ever setting foot in the White House, was it not? So how about it, electors? This is your chance to do what you are supposed to do.

[NCTraveler]

1. I will be shocked. As will the rest of the country. nt.

[Skinner]

2. They're going to elect Trump.

And if they don't, it would be incredibly shocking.

[mtnsnake]

9. I would be surprised, but it SHOULD be no shock if they didn't elect him

because of the premise of the Electoral College itself concerning our election process. Why should anyone be shocked if they do what they're supposed to do, which is to prevent someone like Trump from holding the office of president? Besides, they could pretty much hand pick some other Republican, could they not?

[pangaia]

101. I would bet most of them don't even know a history of the electoral college

or why it even exists, much less anything Hamilton or any other of those wise old farts said..

AH maybe,..................
Give me Liberty....
We the people.....
Don't fire until you see.... oh.. wait.. that was somebody else....

[whathehell]

27. Must we always be pessimistic..

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. It's not pessimism

When it's reality

[whathehell]

35. Wrong

It's not "reality" until it happens.

[Cracklin Charlie]

64. Would not be the first shocking thing about this election.

Or, probably even the last.

[MFM008]

65. That's the sort of shock

My old heart needs.

[duffyduff]

99. The only legitimate alternative is Hillary Clinton.

If neither is selected, it is an illegitimate APPOINTMENT and we risk violence in the streets.

[flamingdem]

3. Yesterday it was reported that there are 20 likely to vote against

Trump. So we have a couple of days for some more to jump ship, but who knows

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

10. Some may have already decided

But are keeping mum because there's literally no benefit to publicly declaring it.

[whathehell]

40. Keeping mum would be the smarter thing to do.

Consider the pressure (if not outright threats) they might be under.

[jonno99]

41. Ha! Wouldn't that be ironic? The "shy electoral voter" trumping the "shy Trump voter"! nt

[mtnsnake]

12. Yeah, I saw that thread here yesterday, and that gives some reason for hope. nt

[CountAllVotes]

19. Just heard it is now up to 39

Yep 39.

Bring it on Electoral College and DUMP TRUMP the traitor!

[whathehell]

42. Thirty Nine!!

Sounds good, and please, pessimists, keep that pessimism to yourself.

[flamingdem]

45. oh yay

sure hope so - though Pence or Ryan is not much better

[yodermon]

47. do you have a link? 39 would be awesome.

thanks

[CountAllVotes]

50. No link to the 39 figure

Just heard it on "The View" on the teevee believe it or not!

[yodermon]

52. ok thx

[triron]

60. 39 republican electors??

[CountAllVotes]

63. Apparently half of them are Republicans

Just from the talk I've heard ...

[CountAllVotes]

49. On "The View"

They were discussing this just now and it was on there -- 39! YES!

[stopbush]

53. Any Rs among those 39? If not, it means nothing.

[duffyduff]

94. Of course there are few or none.

This whole Hamilton Electors thing is anti-Clinton bullshit and should be rejected.

[triron]

59. Please: source

Great news if true

[Dream Girl]

88. You're confusing those who are demanding to see the intelligence on Russian hacking with

Electors who may switch. Aplles and oranges.

[duffyduff]

95. Yep. The EC is going to vote Trump.

There are ways to force him out of office, and if and when the GOP does, it will damage the party to the benefit of Democrats.

[bpositive]

4. Yeah.... but

I do not envision that happening.

It would be nice and I would be ecstatic but I do not think that I will be opening this gift under my tree this year.

[ZoomBubba]

5. It would be shocking ...

... but even if they did it, Clinton would still not be named the winner. It would go to a Republican Congress who would likely still vote Trump, but may vote Pence. We're stuck with a Republican as President, no matte what happens.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

7. It's either Trump or Clinton

Anything else would be declared tyranny and ignite a second American revolution.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. It depends on who the faithless electors

vote for. They aren't limited to Trump and Clinton.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

16. But those are the only people who will become president

The public will allow nobody else

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. Once it gets to the House

the public has no say until the next Congressional election, which won't change the Presidency, but would most likely change the House.

It will be Trump - faithless Republican electors will see their votes rejected, it will go to the House, and Trump will easily garner 26 votes to win.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

21. The public always has a say

Says the 2nd amendment. This bureaucratic defeatism is why we lose guys ...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Violent revolution?

Nice.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

37. That's the history of our country

We fought to have representatives that the people voted for. The dirlection of that would destroy the entire foundation of our country. People would be outraged and oust the government. It probably wouldn't turn violent because the Obama administration would never let it get that far and someone other than Trump or Clinton be sworn in.

Second amendment =/= violence. It's just the idea of a deterrence against government tyranny. The government knows that the people can overthrow them so they don't publicly fuck the people's will. Mutual annihilation could ensue if it gets out of hand.

Granted, I'm not gonna do shit and let the Tea partiers do the gun waving. Hoping that 2020 will come before any of Trump's policies can reach the commonwealth.

[onenote]

30. The "public" cast more votes for Trump than they did for all Repub house candidates combined

Those House repubs aren't going to risk electing anyone other than Trump.

[ZoomBubba]

39. OK there is no such thing ...

... as bureaucratic defeatism. I'd love to hear a definition though.

I think you are overestimating the will of the public to really put themselves at risk for candidates they were not enthusiastic for in the first place.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

44. bureaucratic defeatism

Defeatism pertaining to bureaucracy

Belief that once something enters a system of bureaucratic government it is locked in and you have no chance of influencing it.

combining two words in a way you've never seen doesn't make it a moot concept.

[ZoomBubba]

48. OK then.

I don't see how the term applies here.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

51. People think the election is out of our hands just because it's in the proceedings of the

legislative branch now.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

70. Constitutionally it is out of our hands now n/t

[whathehell]

43. Thank you.

The defeatism is getting to me too.

[mtnsnake]

14. Unfortunately, I highly doubt they'd vote for anyone but a Republican. nt

[whathehell]

33. Even another Republican would be a huge improvement

In all probability, he'd at least be sane.

[duffyduff]

76. He/She would be illegitimate. I personally would NOT accept that individual as a president.

n/t

[whathehell]

78. I don't accept Trump, "legitimate" or not. n/t

[duffyduff]

92. Don't care if you do. Most of the Trump voters don't accept Clinton.

You don't take it upon yourself as an ELECTOR to invalidate the votes of 130 MILLION people.

THAT is the issue. Even the USSC in Bush v. Gore didn't try and pick somebody else who was NOT on the ballot.

FUCK. THIS. SHIT.

[whathehell]

96. No? Well, guess what? I could have said the same to you

when you made your laughably self-important "declaration of non-acceptance" of a possible replacement of Trump by the electors...Who cares? Such 'declarations', full of sound and fury as they are, have no legal standing; they mean nothing since citizens will be bound by whatever legal provisions arise from that
president's administration whether you or I "accept" him or not, so I'm afraid those "declarations" are a just self-deluding joke.

[ZoomBubba]

34. Honestly, I don't see it being either one ...

... Trump is erratic, unpredictable and a threat to stability ... Clinton is widely disliked and not trusted. I figure the replacement would be a compromise candidate like Pence, who may not make Democrats happy ... but at least you don't have to go to bed worrying that you'll have Chinese missiles heading for Guam. Pence is also someone that the far right can live with ... and it's doubtful that enough people would rise up to even overthrow a McDonald's. It's just a way that Republicans can keep their seat and Democrats can feel like they're up against a Republican status quo ... which is better than what we would have with Trump.

A second American Revolution isn't going to happen. When the country finally goes out, it's going to be with a whimper, not a bang.

[duffyduff]

77. Hillary Clinton is the popular vote winner. Your claim she is disliked and not trusted is nonsense.

AFTER ALL SHE WON THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES, SO SHE IS NOT THAT "DISLIKED" AND "NOT TRUSTED."

JFC.

The fact is it is either Trump or Clinton.

Anybody else is illegitimate. That person is NOT president.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Best case scenario (which ISN'T going to happen)

is that enough don't vote for Trump so he doesn't get 270. Then it goes to the house with one vote per state. Which means either Trump or another Republican wins.

It's going to be Trump. If thinking differently helps you sleep at night, fine. But there will be no Electoral Christmas gift.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

6. it'll be as big a shock as Trump being PEOTUS in the first place

Which is pretty damn big.

[Girard442]

8. Most electors are low-level party apparatchiks.

They're being rewarded with a glitzy ceremonial post but know their job is to do what they're told.

They're chipmunks. Don't expect them to roar like lions.

[mtnsnake]

20. The thing is, there are more than a few Repubs who do not like Trump either

and who would love to see someone other than him in the White House. Unfortunately, that would mean they would most likely vote for some other Republican. Hopefully, their other choice wouldn't be as batshit crazy as Trump.

[immoderate]

13. Electors -- earn your pay!

--imm

[mtnsnake]

15. Exactly.

Do your job, electors!

[PoliticAverse]

22. As far as I can determine, they aren't paid anything for their electoral college work. n/t

[immoderate]

28. Technicality. They know what it means.

--imm

[NCTraveler]

25. What do they get paid? nt.

[immoderate]

31. The thanks of the American people.

--imm

[NCTraveler]

38. Then they are about to earn their pay. nt.

[immoderate]

46. Collecting is not earning.

--imm

[NCTraveler]

57. Correct.

"Electors -- earn your pay!"

[immoderate]

69. Yes. That was a charge to not be a rubber stamp. It was, however, hyperbolic,

as you noted.

--imm

[immoderate]

72. Update: Actually ELECTORS ARE PAID!

For the meeting, electors are paid $44 a day and $0.17 per mile.

http://www.clevelandcounty.com/public/boe/ecollege.htm

The amounts vary by state. New York is $15/day and $.13/mile. Some give nothing except prestige, I guess. So should I have said "The ones who are paid, should do their jobs?

--imm

[PoliticAverse]

18. I would be shocked. n/t

[mtnsnake]

32. Surely it WOULD shock a lot of people, but it SHOULD not shock anyone

because the electors have a rare chance to actually do what they are SUPPOSED to do, according to the way the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, which is to prevent someone exactly like Trump from holding the office of president. It's right there in the original documents.

[PoliticAverse]

66. If often shocks me when something that should happen actually does. n/t

[DFW]

23. It would shock me

The Electors are selected for doing what they are told/voting as they have pledged, not for being sensible, having a conscience, or deviating from their traditional role, no matter HOW dire the circumstances or how noble the cause for doing so.

Why would ten per cent of the ones pledged to Trump vote for anyone else? Just for some trivial matter like, say, saving the country?

[onenote]

26. Actually it will be an enormous shock if it happens

And as of today, there is absolutely no reason to think its going to happen.

For the electoral college to elect someone other than Trump 270 or more of them would have to (1) vote for Clinton or (2) vote for someone else other than Trump.

Clinton has won states with 232 EV as of now, but there's no guarantee she might not lose one or two of them. (At least one elector from a state she won announced prior to election day that he would not vote for her). So it would take at least 38, possibly more, of the electors from states won by Trump to shift from him to her. Given that the electors are selected by and loyal to the political party of the candidate that won the election in their state, that seems a very very very longshot notion.

Equally longshot -- that 270 electors come together to support a single candidate. Keep in mind that the electors don't meet all together as a unit and discuss/deliberate. They show up at their respective states and basically cast their votes and go home. So the likelihood of a common plan is small. Moreover, as noted, the repub electors are loyal to the repub party and the Democratic electors are loyal to the Democratic party. If you think Nancy Pelosi's daughter, an elector from a state that voted for Clinton by around a 2-to-one margin, is casting her vote for anyone other than Clinton, I've got a bridge to sell you.

So, notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing, it would be not just a little shocking but shocking to a previously unheard of degree in electoral history, if the EC "elected" someone other than Trump. Now, it also would be shocking, but not as shocking, if enough repub delegates cast their votes for other candidate or abstained, thereby denying Trump the needed 270. But that would result in the EC electing someone else -- it would only result in the election being thrown to the House where it is almost certain that Trump, assuming he has more electoral votes than anyone else (but still less than 270) will be selected.

[mtnsnake]

56. Yes, historically speaking it appears to be against all odds of happening, but

it's the job of the electors, as stated by our founders, to prevent someone who is as unqualified and as unstable as Trump from holding the office of president.

However, when is the last time that the electors had to consider someone as unqualified and as mentally unstable as Trump? Never before in history, right?

[onenote]

71. While I'm not a fan of amateur internet psychoanalysis

or other forms of remote diagnosis by amateurs or professionals, I will acknowledge that based on my limited, non professional understanding of the condition, Trump clearly has a narcissistic personality and probably other forms of clinically recognizable mental issues.

But ultimately the Constitution imposes no standard on how electors decide who to vote for and why. They are, in the words of Justice Douglas, "free agents". We can hope that they do the right thing, but there is no way to compel them to vote for, or not vote for, any particular candidate and no way to subject their decision making process to scrutiny or second-guessing.

For the record, by the way, there are some mental health professionals that have suggested that quite a few past presidents exhibited some form of mental illness before, during, or after they became president. And I think a number of historians would argue that Andrew Jackson was nuttier than a fruitcake.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201602/study-half-all-presidents-suffered-mental-illness

[Kotya]

36. Ridiculous.

The Electoral Collage will not only vote to elect Donald Trump, they will do so enthusiastically.

If you think that Republican electors are somehow morally troubled about voting for Donald Trump, rest assured. They're not. The GOP will enter Washington DC early next year the most powerful it has ever been; in control of a majority of statehouses, state legislatures, the senate, the house and the presidency. A vacancy on the Supreme Court and three liberal justices 78 or older.

State electors are partisan Republicans. They don't care that Hillary won the popular vote. They don't care about allegations of Russian funny business. Donald Trump is forming the most conservative cabinet this country has ever seen and everyone one with an (R) after their name, from the President down to the local dog catcher is salivating at the opportunity to undo decades of progressive legislation.

Brace yourself. A year from now, we won't even recognize the place.

[jalan48]

54. I hope but I'm not optimistic.

[jzodda]

55. This is nonsense

I have heard directly from trump supporters who have told me they are ready to take up arms if this happens.

So I would be everything against it.

Also Republicans are now bending over backwards to kiss the ring.

[flamingdem]

68. Let them. The military would be happy to engage

a bunch of confederates

[JustinL]

80. that is a terrible reason to not do it

A public official should never allow threats of violence to deter them from doing the right thing. Right-wing assholes also threatened to take up arms if the ACA passed, if the SC upheld ACA, if the SC ruled in favor of marriage equality, etc., etc. If they do take up arms, they will have to be put down. It's been done before.

[mtnsnake]

81. Why on earth would you ever let those assholes push you around?

Disagree with me for any other reason but that, please!

[jzodda]

90. Unfortunately for me one of them is my boss

And he's a real jerk!

[NewJeffCT]

58. since it's never happened in our history

it will be extremely shocking to me.

[mtnsnake]

62. When in our history has the EC had to consider voting for someone as unfit & unqualified as Trump?

The Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College for exactly this type of situation.

[onenote]

89. The founding fathers also set up the EC to ensure overrepresentation of slave states

The EC represented a compromise. And while one group wanted it to provide a buffer between the public and the decision as to who would be president, the slave states wanted it because under the EC, they gained votes based on their slave population, while a popular vote approach would have left them with a smaller say in the election.

So from that standpoint, the EC has worked just as it was intended to by giving the old slave states an disproportionate role in the election.

[Snotcicles]

61. In this case they are the last firewall to avert a coup. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

67. I'll believe it when I see it.

Until then I have my doubts.

[Coyotl]

73. Ha Ha

[jmg257]

74. It would be EXTREMELY shocking to see 538 people try to decide the will of the entire country.

And worse for them to change it based on their own opinions.

[duffyduff]

75. It won't work. The person would be illegitimate.

There would be outrage throughout the country if that happened. It would be way, way worse than if Clinton were selected.

If they don't select Trump, then it HAS to be Clinton. It should be anyway because she won the popular vote and because of national security reasons. Which is WHY it will be Trump because the GOP electors are partisan idiots who are giddy over the prospect of total power in D.C. and don't give a shit they are voting for a Russian puppet.

Furthermore, they don't meet in one location, so the chances of any third party being selected are zilch.

[mtnsnake]

79. How would an electoral college vote be illegitimate?

[duffyduff]

93. It IS illegitimate to invalidate the votes of 130 MILLION people.

WHY is that SO hard to understand? These electors would risk BLOODSHED if they overruled the voters.

There are only two legitimate candidates: Clinton and Trump. There is NOBODY else. You can't select a third party and think the public is going to accept this.

It is FAR better if Trump got in there because there are avenues to remove him. From the Democratic Party viewpoint, it benefits the party for Trump to be in there and not somebody like Kasich or Romney or Ryan. Trump does a lot of damage to the GOP.

Fuck this "Hamilton Electors" BULLSHIT. It was Clinton haters who started this.

[mtnsnake]

97. Try telling that to the Founding Fathers. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

82. If a third candidate were to be elected

it wouldn't be by the electoral college, it would be by the House.

But I agree, zero chance it's going to happen, just like it's zero chance that Hillary will be elected.

[mtnsnake]

83. If the Electoral College fails to produce a majority winner, then the House would choose

the president, and there's nothing illegitimate about that either. I don't know where this "illegitimate" idea surfaced in a couple of the other posts.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

84. Agree 100%

I was just pointing out that the Electoral College not meeting as a group has no bearing whatsoever on a third candidate being elected.

[RealityChik]

85. No shock at all, but...

I'll be horrified if they default to Mike Pence because, out of loyalty and gratitude to Trump, Pence would likely leave Trump's cabinet cabal in place, and maybe even Trump's greedy, revenge-driven children in place.

We need a clean break, a total removal of every trace of Trump.

[triron]

86. May I suggest HRC?

After all if I were a defecting elector and feared possible reprisals, Clinton would be a very safe choice in that regard. She won the popular vote as well.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

87. I'm skeptical, but I hope so!

It's happened before...

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/electoral-tally

With so many candidates in the election of 1824, it's not surprising that no candidate received a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Andrew Jackson had a plurality of both the popular vote (40.3%) and the Electoral College vote, but he did not hold the constitutional requirement of a majority of the electoral votes. For the first time, the presidential election vote proceeded to the House of Representatives. There, John Quincy Adams was chosen primarily because Henry Clay, never a Jackson supporter, placed his support behind Adams. Jackson was outraged after Adams appointed Clay secretary of state, and he proclaimed it a "corrupt bargain." While he was never able to prove any actual bribery or corruption occurred, the accusation endured and influenced the next election, as well as Clay's political career.

[duffyduff]

91. Not acceptable. EVER.

I will be god damned if I am going to approve this fucking shit of asshole electors who hate Hillary Clinton to pick somebody who was NOT on the ballot.

NOBODY SHOULD APPROVE OF THIS, not Clinton supporters and not Trump supporters.

This is TOTALLY illegitimate. You think there won't be riots if the votes of 130 MILLION people are invalidated by a bunch of anti-Clinton assholes voting "their conscience"? Because that is WHO are the people who started this stupid "Hamilton Electors" bullshit.

They will be damned if they EVER vote a WOMAN in there even if they are the same party as that woman. Those fuckers need to resign their jobs if they are not going to do it.

Give me a fucking break.

[mtnsnake]

98. Unfortunately for you, me, & everyone else here, those "fuckers" don't need our approval

The way the electoral college is set up, they can pretty much vote for whomever they want to.