Clinton electors lobbying for EC protest votes? *UPDATE* 29 electors want intel briefing

[jimrtex]

As someone who holds a low-level party office, I can't tell you how many kooky mass emails I've been getting the past month on a daily basis from random people across the country convinced that the Electoral College is winnable; as if I'm in some sort of position to make that happen. Halfway coherent ramblings with lists of elector contact information, "strategies" and stupid clickbait included. I'll be very glad when this is over, for my inbox's sake.

Maybe you should take "President" out of your nym.

Do any start with, "Dear Jimmuh" or "My Dear Little Alec"

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

Generally, the faithless electors are chosen by the party.

For example, the Colorado electors were chosen at the state convention in April, where a majority of the delegates to the national convention were supporters of Bernie Sanders. Presumably the elector nominees were also distributed on that basis. They had to sign a pledge to support the Democratic nominee.

Washington chose its delegates via a convention process that Sanders dominated, and likely chose its electors the same way. Conceivably, they could all have been Sanders supporters.

In Texas, delegates were apportioned on the basis of the primary, but the delegates and electors were chosen by a separate convention process. The "Trump delegates" likely supported Cruz, and would have switched as soon as possible. The elector nominees were also chosen by state convention.

If the presidential candidates had to file as individuals, they could choose their own electors, who would be more likely to vote for the candidate. The only ones who wouldn't be faithful would be those who hadn't been screened. Since elector candidates aren't on the ballot in most states, you could even have a very late deadline for filing your electors, such as a month before the election.

The filing would be by Donald J. Trump, who would name the Vice-Presidential candidate, and the elector candidates (with their signature). It could also include the signature of the state party chair giving permission to use the party name.

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

[jimrtex]

This is how Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in The Federalist Papers 68:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

He is arguing here that the electors should vote based on "merit", not on the "little arts of popularity".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He did not anticipate the Internet.

And the Federalist Papers were propaganda. If any other method had been chosen, Hamilton would have advocated for it just as forcefully.

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

If you're referring to the 12th amendment, that addressed a wholly different problem with the electoral college by separating the votes for president and Vice President. But electors continued to be unbound by any popular vote in many states for quite some time after.

Nonsense!!!

Do you think 73 electors in nine different states just happened to put Jefferson and Burr on their ballots, and 64 other electors in ten different states just happened to put Adams and Pinckney on their ballots?

NOPE. 73 electors who belonged to Party A voted for Jefferson and Burr. 64 electors who belonged to Party B voted for Adams and Pinckney.

[jimrtex]

Some of the electors want an intelligence briefing about Trump’s ties to Russia:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-intelligence-briefing-trump-russia-232498

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Suprun is the only Republican elector to sign.

How do we know that those presidential electors are not Soviet agents, planted into the system to cause chaos?

[jimrtex]

How is something like that even possible? Every state should have laws against faithless electors and only the most loyal partisans should be chosen as electors.

This. We need to avoid crazy situations like what we may see later this month.
the electors need to be bound.

The whole point of the electoral college was to act as a check on the people, who have proven this year that they cannot be trusted in terms of choosing a president. If the founders didn't want the electors to be free to be faithless, they would have made the EC simply a numerical count, not an actual group of people. We need to respect the will of the founders, take all faithless elector laws off the books, and let the electors live up to their real job - acting as a check on a populace filled with low-information voters.

That might have been the intent of the founders, but within three elections they had figured out that it didn't work that way, and they amended the Constitution after the fourth.

If you're referring to the 12th amendment, that addressed a wholly different problem with the electoral college by separating the votes for president and Vice President. But electors continued to be unbound by any popular vote in many states for quite some time after.

Nonsense!!!

Do you think 73 electors in nine different states just happened to put Jefferson and Burr on their ballots, and 64 other electors in ten different states just happened to put Adams and Pinckney on their ballots?

NOPE. 73 electors who belonged to Party A voted for Jefferson and Burr. 64 electors who belonged to Party B voted for Adams and Pinckney.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Can you clarify?

The Federalist Papers were propaganda. If some other method had been chosen, Hamilton would have argued for that scheme being near perfection. Hamilton was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but was absent much of the time. It's not like he shepherded the electoral college through the convention.

We can not know whether Hamilton actually believed that electoral college should, would, or could act in the way that he described.

By the 1796 election two political factions had formed, but because of incomplete coordination by these supposedly independent meetings in the 16  States, Adams and Jefferson were elected President and Vice-President. Some Federalists did not vote for Thomas Pinckney out of fear that Jeffersonians would also vote for Pinckney and cost Adams the election.

By 1800, the parties had become more coordinated. 73 electors voted for Jefferson and Burr. 64 electors voted for Adams and Pinckney. One voted for Adams and John Jay. In Maryland electors were popularly elected by electoral district. The five from the south went to Annapolis and voted for Jefferson and Burr, the five from Baltimore and the north went to Annapolis and voted for Adams and Jay. It would be utterly absurd to claim that they were not voting in a predetermined partisan manner.

Because Jefferson and Burr were tied, the election of president went to the lame duck House of Representatives, where Federalists (party of Hamilton) attempted to elect Burr as President.

The reason for the 12th Amendment was because the system that Hamilton had argued for less than two decades earlier did not work. It was not a deliberative body. Hamilton actively campaigned for Adams/Pinckney electors to be chosen by legislatures or popular election. As you might remember, 1800 was the low point in appointment by popular election of electors.

Hamilton then actively worked to prevent Federalist representatives from choosing Burr.

Hamilton himself proposed a version of the 12th Amendment that would have provided for popular election of the electors from electoral districts, who would then vote for a president and vice-president.

Hamilton knew the electors did not meet and deliberate, he had campaigned for the appointment of electors who would vote for the candidates of his party. He might have been dismayed that the New York legislature had appointed 12 Jefferson+Burr electors, and thus sought popular election, which would likely peeled off at least some electors for the Federalist.

By that time, parties were campaigning for US representatives. It is ridiculous to think that voters in similar areas to congressional districts would not vote for electors based on party.

It is without merit to interpret the electoral college based on arguments of Hamilton in the Federalist. Experience and reality showed that it did not work. The 12th Amendment was an effort to better align the selection of the president and vice president with reality. Hamilton recognize that Article II version was neither perfect or even excellent.

(Note I am not suggesting that you would make utterly absurd claims or have ridiculous thinking, but that someone who ignores the 12th Amendment, and the reasons for its passage, and clings to the Federalist is engaging in wishful and ahistorical thought).