Hamilton electoral voters. Is this worth backing?

[TrogL]

Faithless Electors

The renegade group believes it is the responsibility of the 538 electors who make up the electoral college to show moral courage in preventing demagogues and other threats to the nation from gaining the keys to the White House, as the founding fathers intended.

They intend to vote for "Hamilton" or others.

Apparently it's only a $1000 fine to do so.

[portlander23]

1. No

While I support Jill Stein's recount in as much as it will shine a spotlight on our busted electoral system and potentially the effects of voter suppression, the idea that it will overturn the election results, or that electors can be convinced to vote for Clinton, or that the Hamilton electors can convince a majority of electors to back a non-Trump republican is a nonstarter.

On one hand the electors you'd have to convince are hard-core Republican party members. On the other hand, the notion that electors would overturn the will of the electorate, no matter how much we disagree with it, would plunge the country into disarray.

If you're looking for something to support, look beyond the 2016 election.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Donald Quixote might say yes. n/t

[ancianita]

3. Why not? That's subsidizing them by $42,000 in order to support a 2.1 million popular vote.

TEN have gone to Clinton's side already. All she needs is 41 (42?) more.

To get electors to support a 2.1 million popular vote win sounds like the most democratic action we can take right now. To affect the next four years.

So hell yes.

[citood]

4. Do you have a source for that

I thought one elector from TX resigned and was replaced. The electors supporting the effort are from states that went blue anyway.

[ancianita]

5. Politico. Among the "Faithless" electors.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731

[citood]

7. Nothing in that link indicates Trump electors are bailing

Colorado and Washington have HRC electors assigned.

If anything, this is a pro Bernie swipe at Clinton.

[ancianita]

14. Okay. Well, I saw that reference but didn't give it enough thought.

[Shemp Howard]

6. These "faithless" electors are NOT going to vote for Hillary!

The Hamilton "faithless" electors are already pledged to Hillary! Their plan is to NOT vote for Hillary - abandon her - and instead vote for some moderate Republican.

In doing so, they hope that many Republican electors will desert Trump and instead vote for that Republican also (which they won't).

The net result of all this nonsense is that the Hamilton electors will end up costing Hillary electoral votes.

[LisaL]

9. What exactly does Hillary need electoral votes for?

She doesn't have 270. So what difference does it actually make?

[Shemp Howard]

10. She doesn't need those electoral votes.

Some people think that the "faithless" Hamilton electors are out to help Hillary. It's very understandable that they think that way. After all, the Hamilton electors are all (so far) Democrats.

But the Hamilton electors are actually abandoning Hillary in an attempt to take Trump down. Hillary would lose electoral votes in this process. But as you noted, that would not affect her overall status. She would just be even more below 270.

[LisaL]

11. If none of the republicans are going to do it then obviously the whole scheme makes no

sense.

[ancianita]

13. Link for this, please. Of the fifteen states that have 'faithless' electors, only one is blue, IIRC.

Even if that means that enough numbers could get Hillary a vote of 270, the House still wouldn't lose the presidency over it.

There is no "deserting" a candidate when your state allows its electors to be in the 'faithless' zone. And fifteen states are in that zone.

So let's not pretend we know how each and every elector is committed to in the red states, because we don't.

Unless I'm missing something. Cuz y'all are sure jumpin' all over me about this.

I'm just tryin' to see a path to win, you know.

[FBaggins]

15. Yes. You're missing something

None of the Hamilton electors is from a red state. They're all trying to convince enough Trump electors to switch to a different republican on the theory that the House would boot trump for a more acceptable republican.

In no event does this help Clinton.

[ancianita]

17. Okay. But how can you disregard that a majority of faithless electors are from red states

and thus CAN help Clinton?

[FBaggins]

19. I can disregard it easily - because it isn't true.

The majority of the states that don't legally bind their electors are red. You appear to be calling those "faithless" despite the fact that none of the actual red electors have indicated that they will do anything other than vote for the candidate that their state selected.

So far, the only electors who have indicated an intend to disregard their state's selected candidate... are Democrats.

[ancianita]

20. So that's it? Just give up? As I said to TrogL, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia are faithless elector zones.

That's a lot of electors to care about the total popular vote, no matter what states they're from and no matter what the popular vote of each of their states is.

Remember, Hillary needs 42 electors from those states to not represent their states' popular vote counts.

They could well be compelled.

I don't understand how this possibility isn't even considered around here. [u

[FBaggins]

24. We are not left with just "give up" or "get behind nutty notion with no chance of victory"

...are faithless elector zones.

There is no such thing as a "faithless elector zone".

That's a lot of electors to care about the total popular vote

As I said below... you're talking about people who are glad that Clinton lost and are therefore entirely satisfied with the rules as they currently stand. They aren't going to "care about the total popular vote" if it means that their party loses after winning by the existing rules.

I don't understand how this possibility isn't even considered around here.

Because it was always disconnected from reality. Absent one of the recount efforts suddenly discovering a bombshell, there's no chance that Clinton is going to become president.

[ancianita]

22. Don't you think electors of those states would hold their intentions away from media scrutiny?

[FBaggins]

23. I think the electors in those states are almost all Trump voters

They're happy that he won and unpersuaded that they should change the rules of the election (to a popular-vote standard) after they won.

[enid602]

27. medicare

Might they not be less likely to vote tRump after tRump's announcement this past Wednes that he will 'phase out' Medicare? He did not say he was presenting a program to Congress, he said flatly that he will phase out Medicare very soon. His pick as HHS Secretary is one of the major authors of this school of thought. With control of ALL branches of Government, there is nothing to stop the Republicans from accomplishing this long sought after goal. Seems like there might be a lot of folks dependent upon Medicare in these deep Red States. And will the Republicans stop with tossing Obamacare and Medicare? Why not go after Social Security as well. You know they want to. . .

[FBaggins]

29. Republicans

You're asking whether or not Republicans might be less likely to vote for a Republican after he promises to do something that Republicans like?

Electors aren't random citizens who might decide to change their minds due to some policy pronouncement. They're picked for long-term party loyalty.

[triron]

8. Link?

Which 10? Source?

[ancianita]

12. It was supposed to be breaking at the time, and names not given.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731

If I misunderstood, it's my fault. Partly wishful thinking, particularly when the idea that the Electoral College could vote against their red constituencies,anyway.

[Madam45for2923]

16. Hamilton Electors are sneakily fooling Democrats! They are anti-HRC!

[ancianita]

18. We could try to trust them. I tend to doubt they'll see DT for what he is, but stuff happens.

Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia are faithless elector zones.

Remember, Hillary needs 42 electors from those states to not represent their states' popular vote counts.

They could well be compelled by the 2.1 million popular vote count and the poverty of leadership that Trump presents.

[Coyotl]

21. Popular vote margin now 2,597,156.

This needs another state added:



When the counting is done, Clinton may lead by the sum of all Trump voters in 12 states.

[Amishman]

25. No, because even if every single one picks Clinton, the House rejects and we get Trump

The House of Representatives has to vote to accept the results of the Electoral College. Even if we get enough Hamilton Electors to out Hillary over 270, the House will declare it invalid due to tampering and reject it. We still get Trump.

[TrogL]

26. Suppose Trump doesn't get 270 and neither does Hillary.

Could they compromise on somebody like Kasich?

[J_William_Ryan]

28. What would be the point?

Kasich as president would still sign into law legislation getting rid of the ACA, Medicare, Social Security; a Kasich presidency would still make judicial appointments hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

There needs to be a realization that the problem isn’t ‘Trump’ – the problem is the reactionary right and its wrongheaded agenda of fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate, regardless the Republican occupant of the WH.