Are 538 Sworn electorates going to overturn the will of 60 million?

[Toro]

If they get the 40 people needed to vote for someone other than Trump, what happens? There is word that they are up to 20+ at the moment, this seems like a serious threat.

This meddling in these electorates decisions is astonishing. If people take an oath and then don't follow through, what value is their word, or the EC?

No.

Please stop being crazy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If they get the 40 people needed to vote for someone other than Trump, what happens? There is word that they are up to 20+ at the moment, this seems like a serious threat.

This meddling in these electorates decisions is astonishing. If people take an oath and then don't follow through, what value is their word, or the EC?

The chance of this happening is .000001%, so I honestly don't know why everyone keeps bringing up this subject as if it is even remotely realistic.

 

[Lakhota]

If they get the 40 people needed to vote for someone other than Trump, what happens? There is word that they are up to 20+ at the moment, this seems like a serious threat.

This meddling in these electorates decisions is astonishing. If people take an oath and then don't follow through, what value is their word, or the EC?

The chance of this happening is .000001%, so I honestly don't know why everyone keeps bringing up this subject as if it is even remotely realistic.

So, you're saying there is a chance?

 

[HenryBHough]

Well similar to Democrats complaining that the GOP needs to be concerned about Russian hacking as next time it might impact them, I would think Democrats would understand this also about the EC.

They're clueless.

For the same reason they're going to shocked and in awe when President Trump uses his phone and his pen in exactly the way his predecessor chose to do. And...in so doing...set a precedent that dictatorship IS acceptable to all Americans. Were it not? Then Obama would have been removed about six month into his reign of terror.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

How about posting the Article, Section and Clause that state electors have independent votes. They are chosen by the State to do the will of the State, they are elected representatives with one duty, to vote the way the State tells them to.

I need to clarify, Hamilton and Madison were the creators of the electoral process written in to the constitution, along with 7 others, a total of 9 were the founding fathers committee members that created it...

in the Federalist papers 68, Hamilton explained how he saw the process of the electors working, google federalists 68 and in there he goes in to the elector's independence.... so, not in the actual article in the constitution, but in the papers explaining how they came to writing the article.... Madison has writings on it too, I think it is the federalist papers 74, but I would need to double check that number.

Yeah Madison also said the Genereal Welfare reverence in Aritcle 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the taxing and spending clause, was a spending category that was limited by the remainder of Section 8 too. How'd that work out once the supremes got hold of it? So you hypocrites use the federalist papers like you do the Constitution, selectively when it supports your hypocrisy.

But back to the topic at hand, do you seriously think Hamilton or Madison would want electors to reverse the will of a sufficient number of States to propose a constitutional amendment? I don't think so since Trump has every annunciated constitutional qualification to be president. The fact that you or anyone else thinks he's otherwise unqualified is irrelevant. Electors are elected to do the will of the State, they have no independence beyond casting their personal general election ballot in their respective States.

I've posted this a couple of times fr discussions such as this.

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

The man that wrote his is a practicing Constitutional Attorney.

 

[OKTexas]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

How about posting the Article, Section and Clause that state electors have independent votes. They are chosen by the State to do the will of the State, they are elected representatives with one duty, to vote the way the State tells them to.

I need to clarify, Hamilton and Madison were the creators of the electoral process written in to the constitution, along with 7 others, a total of 9 were the founding fathers committee members that created it...

in the Federalist papers 68, Hamilton explained how he saw the process of the electors working, google federalists 68 and in there he goes in to the elector's independence.... so, not in the actual article in the constitution, but in the papers explaining how they came to writing the article.... Madison has writings on it too, I think it is the federalist papers 74, but I would need to double check that number.

Yeah Madison also said the Genereal Welfare reverence in Aritcle 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the taxing and spending clause, was a spending category that was limited by the remainder of Section 8 too. How'd that work out once the supremes got hold of it? So you hypocrites use the federalist papers like you do the Constitution, selectively when it supports your hypocrisy.

But back to the topic at hand, do you seriously think Hamilton or Madison would want electors to reverse the will of a sufficient number of States to propose a constitutional amendment? I don't think so since Trump has every annunciated constitutional qualification to be president. The fact that you or anyone else thinks he's otherwise unqualified is irrelevant. Electors are elected to do the will of the State, they have no independence beyond casting their personal general election ballot in their respective States.

I've posted this a couple of times fr discussions such as this.

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

The man that wrote his is a practicing Constitutional Attorney.

In the supreme court decision he cited, FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions., the court basically said the same thing I did, of course being lawyers they took the long way to get there.

 

[candycorn]

If they get the 40 people needed to vote for someone other than Trump, what happens? There is word that they are up to 20+ at the moment, this seems like a serious threat.

This meddling in these electorates decisions is astonishing. If people take an oath and then don't follow through, what value is their word, or the EC?

Won't happen.