quote:

The left wing publication Salon is now hoping the Electoral College blocks President-elect Donald Trump from officially winning the presidency tomorrow, this time by stating (again) how the system is racist. Oh, and how Trump is the avatar of white supremacy:

quote:

History often comes full circle. It can be darkly ironic as well. The Electoral College, an institution that helped to protect the white supremacist ignominy of black chattel slavery could now become the instrument used to stop Donald Trump, the avatar of contemporary white racism.

Politics and history are messy and complicated. Many people prefer simple stories about America’s past and present. In the flat version of history, the Electoral College was created in the 18th century by the Framers as a council of elders who would serve as a check on the passions of the public, because they understood how such feelings could all too easily sweep through a democracy like a forest fire if left unchecked.

In reality, the Electoral College was part of a larger compromise that tried to balance the economic interests of different regions as well as the competing desires of various elites. That compromise created a hybrid federal system of government that gave equal representation to each state (in the Senate) but also allowed for representation on the basis of population (the House of Representatives).

America was also a racialized “democracy” where several million black people would eventually be owned by whites as human property. The enslavement, exploitation, rape, and destruction of black bodies were the economic engine that drove the American economy. Thus, by both design and intent, the United States Constitution was a pro-slavery and pro-Southern document. The Electoral College was central to maintaining America’s white supremacist slavery regime...

One of the redeeming features of America’s political culture is an ability to learn from the past and to view democracy as a work in progress. This long arc of progress does bend, sometimes upwards and at other times downward. But in total the United States has shown a remarkable ability to expand its understanding of democracy and personal liberty — even though the election of Donald Trump represents a significant deterioration.

In these dark moments, hopes and dreams are powerful acts of personal resistance. To that end, we can hope that the Electoral College will stop Donald Trump when it convenes in the state capitals on Dec. 19. Under the Constitution, the electors are free to stand against the bigotry and racism of Trump.

Uh no—not all the electors are free to vote as they please. Though its constitutionality is in question, 29 states have binding laws in which electors must vote for whoever won the state. Those who resist or refuse to abide by their states’ respective election laws are removed and replaced, with the possibility of charges being filed against them. So, it’s a rather futile exercise. The small cadre of electors who want to block Trump, Hamilton Electors, have tried to challenge these laws in the courts and lost...

Trump will be president, but here’s the thing that liberals seem to forget. They can try and boot Trump in four years. This isn’t the end. Permanent victories are not possible in this country since public opinion changes constantly. Instead, they’re whining about how Clinton got more popular votes (which doesn’t matter), racism Russia, hacking, the FBI, and James Comey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

their attempted coup

No, it is not a coup, it is completely within the bounds of the Constitution, and is in fact one of the purposes of the Electoral College. it is silly and ridiculously unlikely, but it is completely constitutional. Both according to the Constitution as written, and according to the expressed thoughts and reasoning of the people who wrote the Constitution.

the 12th amendment says this specifically: "they [the electors] shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president..." that seems perfectly perfunctory.

there is nothing in the amendment that gives license to electors to "vote their conscience" or to change their vote contrary to the will of the people of their state.

that doesn't mean however there aren't writings from the creators of our constitution to your point, but if there are, share them.

quote:

there is nothing in the amendment that gives license to electors to "vote their conscience" or to change their vote contrary to the will of the people of their state.

quote:

that doesn't mean however there aren't writings from the creators of our constitution to your point, but if there are, share them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

their attempted coup

No, it is not a coup, it is completely within the bounds of the Constitution, and is in fact one of the purposes of the Electoral College. it is silly and ridiculously unlikely, but it is completely constitutional. Both according to the Constitution as written, and according to the expressed thoughts and reasoning of the people who wrote the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Why gray?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What nest, attempting the intimidate the house into disregarding the electors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

their attempted coup

No, it is not a coup, it is completely within the bounds of the Constitution, and is in fact one of the purposes of the Electoral College. it is silly and ridiculously unlikely, but it is completely constitutional. Both according to the Constitution as written, and according to the expressed thoughts and reasoning of the people who wrote the Constitution.

the 12th amendment says this specifically: "they [the electors] shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president..." that seems perfectly perfunctory.

there is nothing in the amendment that gives license to electors to "vote their conscience" or to change their vote contrary to the will of the people of their state.

that doesn't mean however there aren't writings from the creators of our constitution to your point, but if there are, share them.

1952 in Ray v. Blair in a 5–2 vote, The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:

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, sec. 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.

The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."

More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

Such electors that do not vote for the candidate they pledged to before the election are called 'Faithless' electors and Wiki lists 200 such votes in history. All 23 of Va. (1836) did not vote for their pledged VP candidate because of his admission to a relationship with one of his slaves. The senate (only time) voted him in anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
I'm hoping for civil war so we can have a chance at culling the leftist herd.