The electoral college

[BzaDem]

I'm seeing many posts here arguing that we should support electors changing their votes to elect Hillary, or a non-Trump Republican, to the office of the presidency.

Presumably, everyone OK with this idea would be completely fine if Hillary won the EC, and the electors threw it to Trump regardless. (Note the chances of this prior to the election were actually higher than the chances of the reverse, given all available information.) I suppose the argument would be that the election we pretend to have is just a convenient fiction that we have, prior to the actual selection of President by 538 power-brokers that no one has ever met. What those 538 electors say is what goes, voters be damned.

But if you subscribe to that argument, I wonder what your thoughts are on the following scenario. Imagine that Hillary won enough states to put her over the top, without any electors switching their votes. But then imagine that when Congress met on January 6th to count the votes, they "miscounted", and decided that Trump actually was the victor. Note that Congress' role in counting the electoral votes is not subject to review by the judicial branch, or any other higher power. According to the Constitution, what Congress says is what goes.

You might say that this hypothetical is different. The people would rise up, to prevent our country from becoming a banana republic. Whether or not that is actually true, what makes you think anything different would happen if the no-name electors reversed the verdict of the people on November 8th?

Ultimately, when it comes to the transition of power, longstanding norms are what govern -- not arcane technical arguments. Both parties agree to be bound in advance by the result of a process that is out of their full control. The norm of following the results of the election is ultimately one that both parties have observed since the founding of this country. Both sides agree to this, in part because they realize that having a title such as "president" doesn't really mean much if people do not respect the legitimacy of a clear winner of the process everyone understood in advance. In a country where this norm is not ingrained, power would flow to the strongest, who would not be competing for our votes every fourth November.

In our system, you become president if you are the winner of the popular votes in states making up 270 electoral votes. (If the winner of one or more decisive states is not clear, the courts resolve the cases that come before them.) In this election, it is not remotely unclear who won. There is no credible evidence that any voting machines were hacked, much less enough voting machines to flip a state (much less enough voting machines to flip the three states HRC would need to win).

This does not make me happy. I am horrified by what is in store for us come January 20th. But I would be even more horrified by the result of living in a country where unambiguous election results are not respected. In fact, when comparing the two horrors, it is not even a close call. I'm sure many citizens of non-democratic countries would agree.

[duffyduff]

1. This is not a typical election.

Our very country is at stake.

[geomon666]

2. I'd rather worry about living in a country that overturned an "unambiguous" election result

than actually live in one where the President of the United States is unquestionably a puppet of a foreign power.

[BzaDem]

3. What other criteria should invalidate the result of an election?

Many countries have candidates that campaign on moving foreign policy in different directions. Are you saying that anyone with a pro-Russia platform should be disqualified if they win? Or just Trump?

One of the many reasons I am horrified by a Trump presidency is his policy towards Russia. But that is far from "unquestionable" evidence that he is a "puppet" (i.e. ultimately answers to Putin). Whatever your thoughts on that, there is no reputable public information about anything other than Trumps affinity towards Russia, and Russia's enthusiasm for his election. If that changes, and actual evidence is produced, we have a political process (impeachment and removal) to handle that.

[geomon666]

5. Our own intelligence community says Russia was involved in getting this guy elected.

Yeah, that's the only criteria I need. And we're not many countries, we're the United States of America and I hold us to a better standard than that.

[BzaDem]

6. "was involved in getting this guy elected"

By that, I'm assuming that you are referring to their hacking and illegal publication of the e-mail accounts of the DNC and Podesta?

If so, since when is that a valid reason to overturn an election? I am sickened by the hacking and publication of those e-mails, but giving the voters more information (even if that information was obtained illegally) is hardly a reason to overturn their verdict.

[geomon666]

7. A foreign government interfering with an election isn't a valid reason to overturn it?

You can't be serious.

[BzaDem]

11. Think this through.

Let's imagine we had a new law or norm -- if a foreign government interferes in an election by publishing e-mails they were not legally permitted to obtain or publish, the election is overturned.

What happens next? We repeat the election after telling the voters that the publication of those e-mails were by a foreign government?

Of course, the voters had full knowledge that the e-mails were hacked by a foreign government.

Furthermore, what if after repeating the election, the voters vote the way they did before (since they didn't learn anything new between elections)? Does the election keep being repeated until the result is one you desire?

[geomon666]

16. it wasn't just the publishing of stolen emails.

It was "leaking" false/fake "news" as well.

Now let's say you're right and the media does its job and actually reports the facts and the government releases the evidence and we get to have a do-over. If the result is the same, I'd accept it just like I was willing to accept it before all of this Russian bullshit came to light. I'm not some sore loser. I want the integrity of this country upheld and how can we look at ourselves and say "yeah, the Russians interfered but that's ok". I can't do that.

[BzaDem]

19. There is no consensus that Russia orchestrated fake news.

There was a single report in the Washington Post that was largely refuted. While they might have been involved (and I would not be remotely surprised if they were heavily involved), that is not known at this time. While there was plenty of fake news, it is undisputed that at least some of it (and possibly most or all of it) came from people not connected to the Russian government. Publishing fake news on Facebook is a quick way to make a buck for many in other countries.

But it would be irrelevant even if it were. Elections are not overturned subject to people's opinion of media coverage, because that would be an unsustainable system. Republicans constantly complain about media coverage, and would start to accuse major media outlets of publishing "fake news" to overturn elections.

It would also be an unsustainable system, because if fake news meant overturning an election, there would be a large incentive to publish fake news by the side that thought they were going to lose.

If an election is ever going to be overturned, it can't be on a standard that is in any way subjective or easily manipulable. The miscounting of a decisive number of votes in a decisive number of states would be a pretty good reason to change the result of an election. The exposure of information (fake or otherwise) is not such a reason.

[geomon666]

21. "The exposure of information is not such a reason."

According to whom? I don't know what your reasons are for trying to downplay Russia's role in Trump's election as President but the fact that they did that (with help from US based media and the GOP) and for so long is very very dangerous. It calls into question our entire way of governance, in my opinion.

[BzaDem]

26. I'm not downplaying anything.

I agree that the Russians had a big influence through their e-mail hacks. I also suspect (but do not have evidence for) their involvement in fake news efforts and other efforts to get Americans to change their votes.

I'm just saying that taking all of this as a given, it is not (and has never been) a reason to overturn an election result. The straightforward reason is that the voters decided, and it is not up to us after the fact to say that they should have decided differently (or for us to say that they should have been more discerning about what information they credit).

That is true not just from a legal perspective, but from a basic practical perspective. A world in which you can overturn the election (because you don't like information exposed by foreign governments) is a world where Republicans can also overturn elections for reasons other than invalid vote counting (and for that matter, an open invitation for third parties to attempt to influence elections and exposing that influence later to get the result thrown out). It would be madness.

[geomon666]

41. I never said they should decide differently.

I said knowing what we know now as a fact, calls into question this election and only this election for President. We should have another one and if the results are the same then so be it. But it reflects really badly on us as a nation to uphold this election as is knowing what we know.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

30. If Russians assassinate someone that leads a political party

Thus the opposition party rejoices, does that make it less wrong? Of course they'd rejoice even if they knew who perpetrated it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Unfortunately (R)s see their own country as the enemy.

[BzaDem]

33. I'm not sure about how that hypothetical relates to this thread

If the Russians did assassinate the current President, that would be an act of war, and would likely cause a full-scale war between our two nations.

If they assassinated the leader of a political party, it would not quite rise to the level of causing full-scale war, but would likely cause a significant retaliatory response (the contours of which would be determined by the nature and evidence of the event).

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

34. Welcome to the information age

Hacks are the new hits.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. SMFH

I am sickened by the hacking and publication of those e-mails, but giving the voters more information (even if that information was obtained illegally) is hardly a reason to overturn their verdict.

That's the whole point. The Russians only revealed negative information about one side.

[WillowTree]

4. A realist.......Who knew?!!

And, by the way, BRAVO!!

[pbmus]

8. Please understand the electors have a duty to protect our country...

[BzaDem]

15. Voting against the winner of their state does exactly the opposite of protecting our country.

First, it would not necessarily prevent Trump from becoming President. Congress could ignore those electoral votes as illegally cast, and there is nothing you could do to stop them.

But more importantly, even if it did prevent Trump from becoming President, the 2016 election would be the last election where those with power would feel constrained by the verdict of the voters. That is a heavy price to pay that would have ripple effects lasting decades or longer. We should not take for granted the system that allows our democratic form of government in the first place, or we will regret its loss.

[pbmus]

23. Your suppositions and assumptions are more than fatalistic..

This is a republic, and as such we have many checks and balances which you are assuming will all go against the people. The loss that you speak of is the loss of the electoral college. I want to tell you now that I will work and contribute money to getting the college abolished for the rest of my life if it takes that long.

https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/124331/elect-the-president-by-the-national-popular-vote

[BzaDem]

29. I would LOVE for the electoral college to be abolished.

I hope that enough states enact the National Popular Vote plan, so that we will eventually elect our president by popular vote. That would be changing the system through legal channels whose legitimacy both sides accept. If enough states did that, both sides would look to the popular vote victor to become President, and each side would accede to the other in the event that their side lost.

But today, the electoral college still exists. I don't think all checks and balances in this country would generally "all go against the people." But that is assuming a world in which the Electoral College votes for the actual winner of the election (which in this case is Trump).

The one way that could easily cause all of our checks and balances to crumble, and "all go against the people", would be for the 538 electors to become free agents, and overturn the results of the election (as determined by rules that were universally acknowledged in advance). That kind of refusal (to respect longstanding norms involving the peaceful transition of power) is precisely what causes democracies to die.

[pbmus]

36. The rules that were universally acknowledged include the oath

That each elector takes to protect the republic from the likes of the Trumpster.. Your assumption is that they must vote to elect this despot..you are plain wrong in that assumption.

This will not be a peaceful transition of power FYI..if the electors fail their oath.

[BzaDem]

39. I'm not saying they are all legally bound to support him -- just that we will regret it if they dont

[pbmus]

40. I totally disagree... In fact, we will regret it if they do support him..

[EricMaundry]

9. Fuck that

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. Trump is outright dangerous. Any mechanism that exists to prevent him from taking office

should be employed.

[BzaDem]

13. I don't think you really mean "any mechanism that exists."

In many countries (and most countries throughout human history), the most common mechanism used to prevent a leader from taking office was the use of force. Surely you don't mean that mechanism.

Furthermore, having a system where either side can say "X is outright dangerous, any mechanism that exists to prevent him/her from taking office should be employed", is not a very sustainable system. Plenty of Republicans likely felt that way about Obama.

[lapucelle]

12. An analogy is only as strong as it is on point.

If Hillary were actually unfit for office, I'd say yes. That's one of the purposes of the electoral college.

[BzaDem]

31. Millions of people believe in the fantasy that HRC is not fit for office.

A world in which 538 unknown people can ignore the people (and make dispositive judgement of fitness to office) is not consistent with small-d democratic elections going forward. Furthermore, treating the electors as free agents would INCREASE the likelihood of unfit candidates in the future (since it would be much easier for a foreign government to manipulate or blackmail 538 people than 130 million people).

[lapucelle]

42. Your original question articulates a presumption about "everyone OK with this idea".

I answer for myself. Chase your own red herrings.

[KamaAina]

14. So which foreign power intervened on behalf of HRC?

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick?!

[BzaDem]

17. Are you actually saying that any illegal publication of private information by a foreign government

should overturn an election?

If so, I ask you the same questions I asked in post 11.

[KamaAina]

18. No, I'm saying this goes far deeper than that.

The term "hacked" implies interference with the actual results.

[BzaDem]

20. If it were the case that a foreign government (or anyone else) caused a decisively-incorrect count

of votes to take place, that would be a pretty good reason to change an election result.

As I said though, there is currently no credible evidence of any vote tampering, much less a decisive amount of vote tampering. Furthermore, due to the decentralized nature of elections in this country, the idea that any entity could flip an election in 3 states by the required number of votes is implausible in the extreme.

[KamaAina]

37. But flipping one state is plausible?

i.e. Florida 2000.

[BzaDem]

38. In a different, much closer election, the universe of potentially decisive events greatly expands

In an election like 2000, individual decisions of election officials could be decisive. Even unintentional errors could be decisive. (Or in the case of 2000, five Supreme Court justices halting the counting could be decisive.) That's just the nature of an election decided by a few hundred votes out of millions.

I'm just saying that in this election, it wasn't remotely that close. The chances of manipulation that could plausibly flip the results is improbable in the extreme. Not because people would never think of doing such a thing. Instead, it is because it would simply be too difficult to successfully flip results at thousands and thousands of precincts (where members of both parties are counting the votes and watching the process) without getting caught at any of them.

[kentuck]

22. Why the electoral college should vote against Trump?

If there were external influences on our election system, it would be a stark notice to Russia, or whomever tried to influence our elections, that we do have a check and balance for such events.

The electoral college would not necessarily have to vote for Hillary Clinton. That would not be the reason for their action. It would be to prevent someone, such as Donald Trump, from stealing the office.

The electors could simply "abstain" and send the election to the House of Representatives. In no way would it be for the benefit of the Democratic Party. They would most likely pick one of their own. More than likely, they would choose Mike Pence as the President and choose a VP for him.

Some might think they would be better with Trump? But that would be the choice that would be made, in my opinion.

[BzaDem]

24. They likely couldn't vote for Pence. They must pick from the top 3 EV vote-getters.

So the only way they could vote for Pence is if some electors didn't just abstain, but in fact voted for Pence.

But in that case, even if the House did elect Pence as the third-top vote getter, that would mean that the Senate could not elect Pence as Vice President. And the Senate must pick from the top two EV vote getters for VP. That would require them to pick Kaine, which would effectively cost them a seat in the Senate.

But I think all of this is beside the point. I don't think any of us would ultimately be happy about living in a country where the winner of the election was the loser for the Presidency. This would not be a one-off. There are no one-offs. It would be a precedent that would have effects that continue for the future of our republic.

Even if you look at it from purely a "protecting the country" perspective, it would be a disaster from that perspective for the EC to vote against Trump. What would be easier for a foreign government to manipulate or blackmail in the future? 130 million people? Or 538 electors?

Our citizenry is the ultimate check and balance. Even if it is not perfect -- even if it completely messes up sometimes -- it is far more likely repel such influence than a system where 538 random people pick our president.

[kentuck]

25. Interesting...

Hmmmm...

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

27. Trump does not equal Clinton

Delusion is not a valid political viewpoint.

[kentuck]

28. Would that be like co-Presidents??

Seems only fair since one won the electoral college votes and one won the popular vote - by a lot.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

32. Clinton doing the work and Trump being the hype man

Would actually be a pretty effective government tbh

[kentuck]

35. :)___%

Probably so?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. To answer your question if a foreign power installed HRC as president I could not countenance it./nt

[Lurks Often]

45. An intelligent post that sadly 99% of the people here will ignore or disagree with