Over the past 24 hours, since I last posted about the drama shaping up around the Electoral College, two significant things have happened. First, Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig went public with the news that 20 Republican Electoral College voters had reached out to him to discuss the possibility of voting against Donald Trump. And, second, several Republican Electors have confirmed reports that they’re being threatened with “political reprisal” if they don’t cast their ballots for Trump on December 19, which, as others have noted, could well be a violation of U.S. law.
Given these two developments, I think it’s pretty safe to say that things are beginning to heat up for the 538 men and women whose job it is to actually elect the President of the United States in five days, especially those 306 Republican Electors who have pledged to cast their ballots for Trump… As we’ve discussed before, only one of those individuals has come out thus far and stated publicly that he would not be casting his ballot for Trump, but, as it would only take 37 to keep Trump from the White House, I’m sure you can appreciate why the Republicans might be concerned, especially as a coordinated campaign is being waged to convince Republican Electors to take their constitutional duty seriously. [If 37 Republican Electors voted for someone other than Trump, he wouldn’t receive the 270 electoral votes he’d need to win the presidency, which would then push the issue to the House of Representatives, whose members, according to the Constitution, would then select our next President.]
Speaking of Professor Lessig, who has made it known that he’ll provide free legal assistance to any Republican Electors who choose to cross their party and vote to keep Trump from the White House, he had an interesting op-ed in the Daily Beast yesterday on how all of this might play out. Here’s a clip.
…There is a strong argument—and I believe, ultimately, this is the correct argument—that if an elector cannot vote for the candidate to whom she is pledged, she ought to vote for the next best candidate among those the public actually voted for. That candidate is Hillary Clinton in every state, and especially the three swing states that ultimately decided the result. And it is my view that an elector unable to support Trump has an ethical obligation to vote for Clinton.
Yet it is the most strikingly depressing truth about our current time that partisanship renders this choice almost unthinkable. We have entered the age of “party over country,” which makes the very notion of a Republican elector voting for a Democratic candidate impossible. One would have thought that after an election, recognizing the candidate who received the most votes would not be a partisan act, but a factual acknowledgment. But that’s not how the electors apparently view their role. They, partisans, feel themselves committed as partisans, forgetting that they are actually citizens first.
This reality has led some Democratic electors to try to work out a deal. The “Hamilton Electors,” as they’ve called themselves, are working to persuade Trump electors to join them in voting for John Kasich. If at least 37 Republicans join, then the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. And with one vote per state, the House would select the president from among the three top vote-getters. Mortally wounded by an Electoral College defeat, these Hamilton Electors hope that choice would not be Trump.
From the standpoint of high principle, and Electoral College ethics, this is a hard move to justify. Clinton electors have no good faith reason not to vote for Clinton. Electors defecting from Trump, in my view at least, have no justification for voting for anyone except someone the public has actually voted for. And moreover, the Electoral College was expressly designed to avoid just this sort of collusion. The Framers thought making electors vote on the same day in different states would make it impossible for them to coordinate. Add Twitter and email to the list of things the Framers just did not get.
Yet from the perspective of practical politics, this grand compromise is making more and more sense. If there are 37 electors who cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump, they should at least give the House of Representatives the opportunity to choose a candidate who might unite a nation fractured by a bitter and divisive campaign. That candidate would need to be a Republican. Ideally, the college would also give the Senate the chance to select a Democrat for vice president. This split ticket might unite America over the next four years, and possibly avoid a spiral into civil war…
Again, as I’ve said in the past, I fully expect that, on December 19, Donald Trump will be selected by the Electoral College to be our 45th President. Furthermore, as I’ve also said before, I’m not convinced that an electoral coup, like the one we’re discussing here, would necessarily yield a better result for the country. [Personally, I think that keeping Trump from the White House could spark a civil war.] But, with that said, I continue to find all of this absolutely fascinating, and I can’t help but watch intently as things unfold. From the growing number of Electors who are now requesting a security briefing on Russia’s role in the election, to the fact that elected officials are now stepping forward to suggest that the Electoral College vote should be postponed until such time that the Electors can become better informed as to the present situation, as well as their rights and responsibilities, I can’t look away. I’m completely captivated by the twists and turns… It’s absolutely Shakespearean. One day Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he supports an inquiry into Russian hacking during the election, and the very next he’s shielding Trump from an investigation, saying that a special congressional panel isn’t necessary. One can just imagine the threats that are being made in the halls of Congress as each of our elected representatives considers what’s in his or her best interest… Anyway, I’m sorry if I’m boring you with this, but I just can’t stop.
If, after reading all of this, you should feel compelled to get involved in some way, I’d recommend contacting your elected representatives in Congress, and asking that, if they haven’t already, they join the chorus of elected officials who are demanding that our chosen Electors be briefed on Russia’s role in our presidential election before December 19. And, if you want, I suppose you can also contact Donald Trump and ask why he had time to meet with Kanye West yesterday but had to cancel the press conference where he was going to explain to the American people, and our Electors, why we shouldn’t be concerned about his multiple conflicts of interest.
[note: The above image, for those of you that might not have caught the reference, is from one of my favorite British television shows, The Prisoner. The episode, titled Checkmate, can be seen on YouTube.]
You were right that Trump would attempt to distract. He got Kanye sprung from the mental hospital.
