The States Should Fix the Elector Problem Now.

In 2016, 38 Faithless Electors could have made this an actual possibility.

In the 2016 Presidential election, 38 people could have negated 60 million votes if those 38 had been Electors, and if they had decided that their own feelings were superior to the combined judgment of 60 million American voters, or if they had buckled to the death threats and tremendous pressure brought upon them by the groups who would not accept the election results. If they had, Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would now be the 45th President.

In the 2000 Presidential election, 3 people could have chosen our President, if they had, Al Gore would have become President.

The people described above are known as Faithless Electors. In all of the last 5 Presidential elections, the number of faithless Electors needed to overturn the will of the American voter in any of those has been less than 65. In 2000 it was less than 4.

There is a way to remedy for this. It won't be easy and it won't be fast but there is a way.  The Constitution expressly gave the states the right to appoint "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" the Electors. With that right comes the power to control the Electors as to who they will vote for.

All states should have the following, or similar laws in place and in effect by 2020:

That Electors are bound by law to vote for the candidates for President and Vice President who received the most votes in the general election of a state.

That if an Elector votes for anyone other than the candidates for President and Vice President receiving the most votes in the general election in a state, the vote be declared null and the Elector be replaced with an alternate who will vote the way they have been bound.

That Electors who vote otherwise than as they are directed be punished by a fine and term in prison.

That threatening, attempting to bribe, or attempting to coerce Electors in any way is a felony punishable by fines and a prison term. (These last two are more for deterrence than fixing the problem.)

The Electors should be made to understand that their position is only ceremonial, that their job is to communicate the will of the voters to the state capitol.

Some will say that this is unconstitutional, that to put boundaries on the Electors violates original intent.  I say the Elector system was designed for a political system that did not have political parties or "factions" as they were called back then. That the original intent of the Elector system was to insure to a near certainty that there would be no clear winner and the ultimate decision would default to the House of Representatives. And that the original intent was for the people to choose -through the House because its members were elected every two years by the popular vote of their district- the President and VP

The above may, or may not be true. It is a question for the courts to decide. 29 states and DC have laws governing the votes of electors. Those laws were made shortly after 1803 and they have never been challenged in court.  It's time that the rest of the states put them in place too.

Dear Reader, let me leave you with this scenario to contemplate: You are a 35 year old woman. You have been chosen as an Elector by your Party. You and your husband have a big house with a big mortgage, and two cars in the garage. You have a seven year old son with a heart birth defect that doesn't much bother him as long as he takes his medication and goes on periodic trips to the doctor. It keeps getting worse, though and the doctor says it will eventually kill him unless he gets an operation . Cost of the operation, $250,000 dollars and going up as he gets older.

The combined income of you and your husband is barely enough to cover the family expenses and your son's medical care. When an unexpected expense comes along the credit card is used to purchase what your family has to have because the family savings have been long exhausted. Your family has no reserves, tapped out, your family lives paycheck to paycheck.

You are at the state capitol where you will cast your vote tomorrow morning at 9 am and it is now 10 pm of the preceding night. There is a knock on your hotel door. When you open it, no one is in the hallway but an envelope is laying on the sill. It contains a bank routing number, a website location and states that $10 million dollars has been put in a numbered offshore account. It says if you vote for the specified candidate, you will be given the password to withdraw from that account.

Now, would you check to see if the money was there? If it was, would you do what was asked of you? If not, how long would you think about it before turning it down? Are you going to tell your husband?

You have 11 hours.

Imagine a George Soros like character, or a foreign government. An entity to whom 500 million dollars would be a small price to pay for getting the President of their choice, as it would have been in 2016. Do you think this person/group would hesitate for a second to do something like this if they thought they could get away with it?  Someday, someone, or something will try it because, as long as Elector's aren't bound, as long as they have a choice, it is possible to get away with it.

As I stated earlier, all states should have some form of Elector control in place and in effect by 2020

GIO CAPRIGLIONE IS A BETRAYER, AND A USER. THAT'S WHY HE SHOULD LOSE!

It wasn't money, or the backing of bigtime political players that put Gio Capriglione over the top in 2012, he recieved about $8600 dollars in small increments by the people in District 98, and loaned himself about $23K. But that wasn't it, what got him elected was his grassroots supporters. These people trusted him, they thought he was a conservative because he held himself out as one. These people spent money, shoe leather, and lots of personal political capital to elect him. Then, 4 years later, he betrayed them after using them. Tossed them in the trash like a snotty kleenex.

Gio voted for Joe Straus in 2015 against a Straus challenger. Straus has long been an obstacle to the advancement of the conservative agenda. Although Straus calls himself a Republican, the first time he was elected Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, in 2009, it was with all the votes of the House Democrats (65) and the votes of only 11 House Republicans. (The Texas Constitution directs that the Speaker is to be elected by a simple majority of the House.) He rewarded the Democrats by using the appointive power of the Speaker to appointment them to the most influential committees where they were able to kill most conservative legislation by simply ignoring it. Straus was able to keep his Speaker-ship by appointing his political allies (Democrats) and punishing those too principled to vote for him. Straus continues this practice to this day in a violent distortion of the will of Texas voters. The grassroots knows this. That's why they want him out so badly.

In the 2015 House session, Straus appointed Gio to be Chair of the Committee on Investments & Financial Services in which he was able to herd his pet project, the Gold Depository (HB483) through to passage. It's not hard to connect those dots. This was the payoff for Gio's betrayal.

When Gio was elected, he presented himself as anti-Straus because his constituents were anti-Straus. But the first time he got the chance to actually make an anti-Straus stand by voting for an alternative, he bugged out, abandoned his constituents, his comrades too, and sold his integrity for a committee chair.

Time For a Change. Vote for Armin Mizani for State Representative, District 98.

(Sidebar: The conservative agenda has advanced, a little, in spite of Straus because Dan Patrick was elected Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor serves the same function for the Texas Senate as the Speaker's post serves for the House. When Patrick became LG the Senate began passing conservative bills and sending them to the House, a complete reversal of tradition up to that date. This lead to much Straus embarrassment as he tried to sit on the flood of conservative bills, and probably played a role in his decision to retire.)

Does Jorge Ramos Understand the Reason There is More Opportunity in the USA?

Jorge Ramos makes this astonishing admission in his column entitled: ‘I no longer recognize this country’

Apparently, he is unable to recognize Identity Theft, a felony, for what it is. He thinks illegal aliens should be permitted into this country unlawfully, then be allowed to commit a felony to find work!

He admits "that the United States gave me opportunities that Mexico, my country of origin, did not." but he does not recognize that the reason those opportunities exist is due in large part to the culture of honesty in America. The US is not perfect when it comes to honesty but compared to most countries in the world, it is a paragon of virtue. 

We keep our word, mostly, even when no one is looking, and a high regard for honesty has real world consequences. 

In a culture of honesty, everyday transactions go smoother and therefore, trade and mercantilism are transacted at a higher rate, and higher volume per capita, making everybody a little better off.

In a culture of honesty, a people will work for one, or two weeks without pay because they trust an employer to keep his word and pay them for their work at the end of that time. An employer will advance an employee some pay because he trusts the employee to repay him with labor.

In larger transactions, besides the culture of honesty, the participants have recourse to the Justice system if the deal doesn't work out. And so, multi-million dollars contracts are entered in to, generating billions of dollars to be earned by the people hired by the deal makers to perform hundreds of specialized tasks. 

In a culture of honesty, trust greases the gears of the banking, finance systems and business in general.

All these good things go by the board in a culture of dis-honesty. People have to watch each other like hawks, business is dampened, and the country is poorer. 

In a culture of dis-honesty everyday transactions between a government employee and the public require an under-the-table payment, a bribe. In Mexico it's called "mordita", the bite. In other countries it has other names but it is always the same, a small payment to get the government employee to perform his task. The price rising with the need, importance and wallet size of the person wanting the service.

Only friends and relatives can be trusted. Dealing with strangers is always a risk in a culture of dis-honesty/

People who grow up in a culture of dis-honesty and have no awareness of it, like a fish doesn't notice water. I guess that's why Ramos doesn't recognize a felony for what it is.

The Hydrogen Option: Congress Goes Into Recess, the President Makes Recess Appointments, Congress Ratifies Them

The Democrats are using all the procedural tricks they can think of to slow down and gum up the wheels of the Trump Train in the committee nomination hearings and they are promising to do the same on the Senate floor with the Cabinet picks and the Supreme Court nomination.

The Democrats are not doing this because it will affect the outcome -the nominees are going to be confirmed, or not, by the Republican majority- but because it will slow down and blunt the pace of the President's initiatives, and because the Democrats are throwing a tantrum, like two year olds who didn't get their way. So, like two year olds, they need a hard dose of reality, they need to witness what the adults can do when the adults have come to the end of their patience.

This is what the adults can do: In the Constitution there is a clause. It's called the Recess Appointment clause. It was adopted without debate in order to prevent government paralysis. Government paralysis is exactly what the Democrats are endeavoring to do as we sit. So, this would be a right and proper use of the Recess Appointment Power.


Presenting; the Hydrogen Option.

The enabling statute: 
Article II, Section 2, third paragraph in the U.S. Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

How it would work: 
The Congress goes into recess -or rather leaves town on a three day and one hour break-, President Trump makes Recess appointments for the remaining Cabinet slots and SCOTUS, then Congress comes back from its break and ratifies the appointments by the end of the session.  No muss, no fuss, no interminable Democrat bitching and obstruction in the Senate committee process. Just a clean, quick sword cut of brute political power.

Potential hang ups:
1. It is presumed that ratification is not subject to debate and requires only majority vote. If it isn't this will have to be considered and dealt with.

2. It is also presumed that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, controls the schedule for the Senate and can alter it without interference. If this is incorrect, a way will have to be devised for the Senate to recess.

3. A majority of the Republican Senators should agree on this plan for it to succeed. Without firm majority support, it goes nowhere.

Why is it named the Hydrogen Option?  Because, the Atomic bomb, which people think of when they hear the word Nuclear, was eclipsed in brute power by the Hydrogen Bomb. The Hydrogen Option is also faster, simpler, and less cumbersome than the Nuclear Option.

Perhaps the threat of the Hydrogen Option will cause the Democrats to calm down and be civil.........Nah! 
It may cause them to be more amenable to some kind of compromise though. In any case, President Trump and the Republicans have the high upper hand!! If they'll use it.

States Should Clamp Down on Faithless Electors and Avoid a Presidential Debacle.

In the 2016 Presidential election, 38 people could have negated 60 million votes if those 38 had been Electors, and if they had decided that their own feelings were superior to the combined judgment of 60 million American voters, or if they had buckled to the death threats and tremendous pressure brought upon them by the groups who would not accept the election results. If they had, Hillary Clinton would now be the 45th President.

In the 2000 Presidential election, 3 people could have chosen our President, if those 3 had been Electors, and if they had decided that their own judgement was better than the judgment of the American voter. Al Gore would have become President.

The people described above are known as Faithless Electors. In all of the last 5 Presidential elections, the number of faithless Electors needed to overturn the will of the American voter in any of those has been less than 65. In 2000 it was less than 4.

There is a way to remedy for this. It won't be easy and it won't be fast but there is a way.  The Constitution expressly gave the states the right to appoint "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" the Electors and with that right comes the power to control the Electors as to who they will vote for.

All states should have the following laws in place and in effect by 2020:

That Electors are bound by law to vote for the candidates for President and Vice President who received the most votes in the general election of a state.

That if an Elector votes for anyone other than the candidates for President and Vice President receiving the most votes in the general election in a state, the vote be declared null and the Elector be replaced with an alternate who will vote the way they have been bound.

That Electors who vote for anyone other than the candidates for President and Vice President who received the most votes in the general election for a state be punished by a fine and term in prison.

That threatening, attempting to bribe, or attempting to coerce Electors in any way is a felony punishable by fines and a prison term. (These last two are more for deterrence than insuring a solution.)

Electors should be made to understand that their position is only ceremonial, that their job is to communicate the will of the voters to the state capitol.

Some will say that this is unconstitutional, that to put boundaries on the Electors violates original intent.  Others will say the Elector system was designed for a political system that did not have political parties or "factions" as they were called back then. That the original intent of the Elector system was to insure to a near certainty that there would be no clear winner and the ultimate decision would default to the House of Representatives. The inference, here, being that the original intent was for the people to choose -through the House because its members were elected every two years by the popular vote of their district- the President and VP

The above may, or may not be true. It is a question for the courts to decide. 29 states and DC have laws governing the votes of electors. Those laws were made shortly after 1803 and they have never been challenged in court.  It's time that the rest of the states put them in place too.

Let me leave the reader with this scenario to contemplate: You are a 35 year old woman. You are politically active and have been chosen as an Elector by your Party. You are at the state capitol where you will cast your vote tomorrow morning at 9 am and it is now 10 pm of the preceding night. There is a knock on your hotel door. When you open it no one is in the hallway but an envelope laying on the sill. It contains a bank routing number, a bank website location and states that $10 million dollars has been put in a numbered offshore account. It says if you vote for the candidate they specify, you will be given the password to withdraw from that account.

You and your husband have a big house with a big mortgage, and two cars in the three car garage. You have a seven year old son with a heart birth defect that doesn't much bother him as long as he takes his medication and goes on periodic trips to the doctor. It keeps getting worse, though and the doctoer says it will eventually kill him when he is 14 unless he gets an operation . Cost of the operation today, $250,000 dollars and going up as he gets older.

The combined income of you and your husband is barely enough to cover the family expenses and your son's medical care. When an unexpected expense comes along the credit card is used to purchase what your family has to have because the family savings have been long exhausted. Your family has no reserves, you live paycheck to paycheck.

Now, would you check to see if the money was there? If it was, would you do what was asked of you? If not, how long would you think about it before turning it down? Are you going to tell your husband? 

You have 11 hours.

Imagine a George Soros like character. A person to whom 30 million dollars would be a small price to pay for getting the President of his choice, as it would have been in 2000. Do you think this person would hesitate for a second to do something like this if he thought he could get away with it?  Someday, someone will try this if there are not safeguards in place.

This Proposed Remedy for the Faithless Elector Will, Hopefully Be One Of Many.

A Scenario That Could've Happened