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.
No comments:
Post a Comment