ClydeR
11-30-2016, 08:53 PM
Anti-Trump forces are preparing an unprecedented assault on the Electoral College, marked by a wave of lawsuits and an intensive lobbying effort aimed at persuading 37 Republican electors to vote for a candidate other than Donald Trump.
More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-electoral-college-231980)
Boring. Not going to happen.
Behind the overt anti-Trump push is a covert agenda: If the courts establish that individual electors can switch allegiances, supporting candidates other than those who win their states, it would inject so much uncertainty into the process that states may be willing to junk the Electoral College in favor of a popular-vote winner.
Less boring. I may have spoken too soon. That's actually smart, in a Rube Goldberg kind of way.
Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.
If they get one elector to reject his party's candidate and if that elector is from one of those 29 states and if the Supreme Court upholds that elector's right to be faithless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector), then 2020 will be even more complicated than 2016, because in 2020 the candidates will have to court the electors in addition to courting the voters.
More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-electoral-college-231980)
Boring. Not going to happen.
Behind the overt anti-Trump push is a covert agenda: If the courts establish that individual electors can switch allegiances, supporting candidates other than those who win their states, it would inject so much uncertainty into the process that states may be willing to junk the Electoral College in favor of a popular-vote winner.
Less boring. I may have spoken too soon. That's actually smart, in a Rube Goldberg kind of way.
Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.
If they get one elector to reject his party's candidate and if that elector is from one of those 29 states and if the Supreme Court upholds that elector's right to be faithless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector), then 2020 will be even more complicated than 2016, because in 2020 the candidates will have to court the electors in addition to courting the voters.