US Politics 2016: Delay the Electoral College Vote?

[All-for-Joffrey]

Just saw something about this now from one of the desperate for the electors to change their vote crowd. He actually seemed to have a point on this one though regarding the emoluments clause of the Constitution:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

How will Trump not be consistently in violation of this? The Bahrani government has already rented out his DC hotel for a party and presumably more foreign dignitaries will be doing the same on government payrolls during his presidency, especially during official state visits. That's a pretty clear cut gift from a foreign state. (Not to mention all the business the Trump Organization could do with foreign governments.) The Clinton Foundation could have had this problem too -- but they at least said they would stop taking foreign donations if she became president. (Granted, she said the same thing when she became Secretary of State but she still took donations from Algeria.) 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

34 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I posted a link or two in the past thread (or was it the one before that?) where at least a few individual Electors have either said they are not voting for Trump, or are actively looking for a way not to do so.  Dr Peppers post in the last thread about Electors seeking intelligence briefings on the Russian hacking is in accord with this. 

As I understand it, a major *original* purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent somebody just like Trump from taking office, though this devolved (?) into an iffy theoretical through lack of use. 

So what happens if -

1 - a few Electors, say half a dozen, vote the other way?  (possible to probable at this point from news reports)

2 - enough Electors either abstain from voting or vote the other way to give Clinton the victory? (unlikely but just barely possible, again going from news reports.)

Riots? Loons with guns declaring 'open season' on 'traitors?' Lawsuits? State of Emergency?

#2 would be the worst option, imo.  I think the only way to limit the potential fallout would be for the EC to choose another Republican candidate.  Despite the fact that the country voted for a Democratic President by a more than 3 million vote margin, the EC ensured that a GOP candidate would be the technical winner. Loons with guns would be an almost sure thing.  They promised.  Riots perhaps, but I'm seeing at least some anecdotal evidence that Trump's supporters might be losing their taste for him, especially when he's explicitly walking back campaign promises or they are realizing just how dumb their vote was.  

Hehe, maybe a state of emergency with Obama calling for martial law and then having to stay on for part of a third term, even if only for a week or two, and thus fulfilling the fevered dreamed prophecies of tea partiers who said Obama was angling for a third term.  

Honestly, I look at my kids and I am starting to prefer the EC blowing shit up now rather than my kids having to live with a Trump legacy for half their life or more.  I think about myself, having grown up under a Reagan legacy and how damaging that has been to my generation.  I don't want that for the coming generations.  I mocked and attacked those who wanted Trump so that shit will get bad before it gets better and now here I am practically salivating for it.  

[ThinkerX]

Quote

Days after a video surfaced showing an Orange Coast College professor telling students that Donald Trump’s election was an “act of terrorism,” violent threats have forced the instructor to flee her home state of California.

Olga Perez Cox — who was secretly recorded by one of her students last month discussing the presidential election — received a flood of angry emails, phone calls and Facebook comments — some of which were violent and threatening, according to the Orange County Register.

An email Cox received said, “You want communism, go to Cuba . . . try to bring it to America and we’ll put a (expletive) bullet in your face,” according to the paper.

The threats didn’t end there, according to Rob Schneiderman, president of the Coast Federation of Educators/American Federation of Teachers Local 1911 that represents Cox.

“Someone emailed her a picture of her house, with her address,” he told the Orange County Register, noting that the email referred to Cox as a “libtard, Marxist, hatemonger, nutcase” and said “her home address is now going to be sent everywhere.”

In total, more than 1,000 messages were directed at Cox, OCC and her union, the paper reported. In the end, the flood of anger proved overwhelming, and Cox turned her final week of class this semester over to a substitute, Schneiderman told the Orange County Register.

Found this:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-professor-called-trump’s-election-an-‘act-of-terrorism’-death-threats-forced-her-to-flee/ar-AAlvEVB?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

First part is in the above quotes (thanx, quote feature)

The part that interested me, though, was this:

Cox’s name

has been added to a controversial website called “Professor Watchlist,” which lists the names of about 200 academics from across the country accused by a conservative group of advancing “leftist propaganda” and discriminating “against conservative students.”

Real easy to see this list being expanded, made official, and used as a club with this administration.  How many folks we have here in danger of being on this list or one like it?

 

[ThinkerX]

Because of the recount thing:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stein-plans-to-donate-leftover-money-raised-for-recounts/ar-AAlwdnI?ocid=msnclassic

Quote

Among the criticism that Trump and his supporters have leveled at Stein was that she was pursuing the recounts to raise her own profile and pad her campaign coffers. Stein only won about 1 percent of the vote in the three states.

Stein said Tuesday that she had raised $7.33 million from nearly 161,300 donors. Even if she doesn't keep any leftover money, the recounts helped her build a database of donors that could be sold to others or tapped for future efforts.

Stein hoped to add to that list by soon launching an online survey asking donors who they would like any leftover money to be given to. Stein said the names of groups getting the money will be made public "in the coming weeks."

Stein also provided an accounting of what she has spent money on so far. The most, nearly $3.5 million, went to Wisconsin to pay for its recount. If the final cost is higher, Stein's campaign would have to pay for it. But if it is less, she would be refunded the difference. Those expenses aren't expected to be finalized until the end of December.

The next largest Stein expense, more than $1.6 million, was for legal fees. Other expenses included payments to recount observers, consultants and nearly $1 million to Michigan for its aborted recount, some of which Stein expected to be refunded.[/quote]

This one is harsher towards Stein. However what interested me was this:

Quote

She and several advisers on the call said a tangle of laws and regulatory obstacles in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania made it far too difficult to verify the integrity of the vote count.

They called for simplification of the nation's patchwork of voting systems, with routine audits of random samples of paper ballots to confirm the accuracy of machine tallies.

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

My President Was Black by Ta-Nehisi Coates.

It's long and there isn't just one quotable section.  Fair warning, it will leave you in tears.

It's an interesting article, but for me, the most striking thing about it is the inability of Coates to understand people outside of his race. Obama appears to understand them and Coates even quotes Obama trying to explain their attitudes to him, but Coates comes away unconvinced.

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Riots? Loons with guns declaring 'open season' on 'traitors?' Lawsuits? State of Emergency?

Probably. The vast majority of the establishment really, really doesn't want to get into this. Trump is unpredictable, but he is undoubtedly a bona fide blue-blood and they can almost certainly find common ground with him. Furthermore, the absolute limit on how long he will stay in power is 8 years and it will quite likely be less than that. On the other hand, if the result of the election is subverted in some way, it is basically impossible to predict what will happen, but the probability of violence is quite high. Roughly half of the people who cared enough to vote support Trump and that is by far the better armed half of the population with the most zealous supporters also being among the most heavily armed.

2 hours ago, Triskan said:

He didn't just mess up "legitimate" v. "illegitimate."  He also messed up "an/a."  Expressed the exact opposite of what was intended.  I think it's almost more likely that they made a mistake on the assessment of the phishing scam as unreal is that would seem.

Indeed. If legitimate vs. illegitimate was a typo, then why also suggest that the password be changed? I mean, it's possible that you would want to change the password regardless, but in that case it needs to be crystal clear that this should be done via Google's site rather than through the email. I'm almost sure they simply messed up and are now trying to claim it was a typo.

Also, if this was how access to Podesta's account was gained, I don't think it makes sense to jump to conclusions about Russia's role in this: practically anyone could have done it. This is not something that requires the computing expertise of a state actor; my academic and government accounts get roughly one email of this type per month that somehow sneaks past the spam filters. They take different forms such as:

-- You have exceeded your quota. Please follow instructions at this link to increase it.

-- Please confirm that you are still using this account by following the instructions at this link.

-- We are transitioning our email system to a new provider. Please follow the instructions at this link to transition your account.

It's kind of hard to believe that anyone fell for this, although in one case, the "transitioning our email system" thing turned out to be genuine so maybe it's understandable.

[ThinkerX]

And here we go:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-orders-colorado-electors-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a

 

DENVER (AP) — Colorado's nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state's popular vote, a judge ruled Tuesday, effectively stopping the state's electors from joining a longshot effort to unite with Republicans behind a compromise presidential candidate other than Donald Trump.

Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs also ruled that any electors who fail to do so can immediately be replaced when the Electoral College convenes Dec. 19. She responded to a request from Colorado's secretary of state, who was seeking a way to prevent electors from diverging from the winner of the state's popular vote.

Electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had sued to overturn a state law requiring them to vote for Clinton, but a federal judge refused to do so Monday.

[Sivin]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

And here we go:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-orders-colorado-electors-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a

 

 

 

Then what's the point of the EC? I know Trump was never going to be denied, but literally the entire point of the EC was to keep madmen from office. If they have to vote as does the state, I see no reasonable excuse to continue the practice.

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Sivin said:

Then what's the point of the EC? I know Trump was never going to be denied, but literally the entire point of the EC was to keep madmen from office. If they have to vote as does the state, I see no reasonable excuse to continue the practice.

It is a relic of a different time. Wikipedia has a description of how the Electoral College has evolved. Basically, Madison and Hamilton intended for it to work sort of like Pennsylvania's Republican Primary does today: each district votes for an elector (not for a candidate!) and then the electors get together and decide on the President. However, it deviated from that model almost immediately (within Madison's lifetime) and has not gone back to it since then. The electors are ceremonial; if ever an election turns on their personal actions, the country as we know it is probably finished.

[Castel]

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It is a relic of a different time. Wikipedia has a description of how the Electoral College has evolved. Basically, Madison and Hamilton intended for it to work sort of like Pennsylvania's Republican Primary does today: each district votes for an elector (not for a candidate!) and then the electors get together and decide on the President. However, it deviated from that model almost immediately (within Madison's lifetime) and has not gone back to it since then. The electors are ceremonial; if ever an election turns on their personal actions, the country as we know it is probably finished.

Yup. Times change, the idea that they are anything but ceremonial is non-existent in every practical sense.

I think, for a lot of people right now they're frustrated and the EC occupies a middle space of being both deliberately non-populist and actually unable to turn over the election result in a candidate they consider obscene. But...deal with it. 

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. 

3 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Found this:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-professor-called-trump’s-election-an-‘act-of-terrorism’-death-threats-forced-her-to-flee/ar-AAlvEVB?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

First part is in the above quotes (thanx, quote feature)

The part that interested me, though, was this:

 

 

Real easy to see this list being expanded, made official, and used as a club with this administration.  How many folks we have here in danger of being on this list or one like it?

 

PC culture claims another victim who was just utilizing their free speech on campus! Gosh, people are so triggered!

[Altherion]

20 minutes ago, Castel said:

PC culture claims another victim who was just utilizing their free speech on campus! Gosh, people are so triggered!

It's actually worse than that. Academia has effectively taken a side in a battle between two very unpleasant groups. Furthermore, it has done so while taking other actions which make its existence without government funding (via student loans) very difficult. Obviously, this does not apply to every school -- Harvard (with its $37B endowment) and the various other elite schools will only be moderately affected -- but most schools lack such resources. The result is that either side in this battle can do significant damage to academia when in power... and it is now the turn of the side that it opposes.

It will be interesting to see what the Trump administration does with academia. For quite some time now, there have been conservative intellectuals metaphorically calling for burning universities to the ground. This would be unpleasant, but it would not be the worst scenario because, as the article you quoted shows, we have progressed to the point where there are anti-intellectuals who are literally calling for burning universities to the ground (or at least physically threatening professors). Hopefully there is still time to turn things around; much of academia has no part in this conflict and it would be a shame to see it impacted.

[ThinkerX]

Dr. Pepper brought this up earlier.  Here is the link:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clintons-team-backs-electors-demand-for-a-briefing/ar-AAltwPn

 

Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman and current adviser says that the campaign backs demands from 10 members of the Electoral College to receive an intelligence briefing on conclusions about whether foreign governments intervened in the election.

“The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” John Podesta said in a statement Monday according to Politico. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”

The letter posted on Medium Monday morning also said that the electors “will separately require from Donald Trump conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign, and conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward.”

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Academia has effectively taken a side

Anyone who says stuff like this, doesn't know a thing about academia. Two academics can take three different sides on any question.

Academia is, after the press, just another source of inconvenient truths to be mown down by the right in the relentless pursuit of ideology.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

And here we go:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-orders-colorado-electors-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a

 

 

 

I saw that yesterday.  I don't understand why the attorney for the electors didn't argue this as a Supremacy clause issue.  The Constitution sets out the duties of Electors just like Senators and Representatives duties are set out in the Constitution.  States should not have the power to modify that duty without a Constitutional Amendment because the Supremacy clause supercedes State law.

[The Mance]

10 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

It hurts my brain when thinking about it though, George...

Yay, I guess, that at least Trump is limiting himself to those meetings for which he's actually qualified to attend?

[Fez]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

And here we go:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-orders-colorado-electors-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a

Doesn't matter. Colorado was a Clinton state and all this EC talk only works if electors from Trump states don't vote for Trump (which won't happen). They could always appeal the decision I suppose, but again, I don't see the point.

I think from a legitimacy standpoint it would be worse for the EC to vote for someone who didn't even run in the general election than to vote for Clinton, who at least ran and actually did win the popular vote. But I think there'd be less chance of violence if the EC voted for a different Republican. It'd still be a disaster if the EC didn't follow the election results though; albeit Trump's presidency also looks like a disaster. It all looks to be moot though, from what I can tell there is so far evidence of only 1 Trump elector considering being faithless; there needs to be 37 to block him.

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html

Quote

But there was never anything quite like the 2016 election campaign, when a handful of Democratic House candidates became targets of a Russian influence operation that made thousands of pages of documents stolen by hackers from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington available to Florida reporters and bloggers.

 

Quote

Why the Russian government might care about these unglamorous House races is a source of bafflement for some of the lawmakers who were targeted. But if the goal of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, was to make American democracy a less attractive model to his own citizens and to Russia’s neighbors, then entangling congressional races in accusations of leaks and subterfuge was a step in the right direction.

Well, well, well, so Republicans want to talk about investigating Hillary?

Maybe we should look into the Republican's activities here and just see what we find.

[OldGimletEye]

If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would never shut the fuck up about it.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would never shut the fuck up about it.

Plus they would be beating liberals about the head and shoulders with their damn stinky shoe.

[Ice Queen]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

It is a relic of a different time. Wikipedia has a description of how the Electoral College has evolved. Basically, Madison and Hamilton intended for it to work sort of like Pennsylvania's Republican Primary does today: each district votes for an elector (not for a candidate!) and then the electors get together and decide on the President. However, it deviated from that model almost immediately (within Madison's lifetime) and has not gone back to it since then. The electors are ceremonial; if ever an election turns on their personal actions, the country as we know it is probably finished.

The problem with this is that in PA when you vote, you have NO IDEA who that elector will vote for. 

[OldGimletEye]

Quote

Ms. Pelosi sent a similar letter in early September to Mr. Ryan. Neither received a response. 

Dear Ms. Pelosi:

I would respond to your letter. But unfortunately I'm too busy praying to Ayn Rand and figuring out how to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

It's easy to get confused when you're livin in an Ayn Rand novel.

Best Regards:

Paul Ryan