[Dec 15: Note that there are 4 updates to the post with additional links after writing.]
The Green Party is driving a set of recounts that might change the outcome in one or more swing states. Simultaneously, there is a growing movement to ask the Electoral College to choose a candidate other than Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States. Some surprisingly serious people are publicly making arguments for the Electoral College taking an active role, including law professors Sandy Levinson and Lawrence Lessig. Lessig’s essay at the Washington Post starts:
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves. (“The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton,” Lawrence Lessig)
Lessig’s piece links to Federalist #68, written by the newly popular Hamilton. Having the electoral college not vote for Trump, after Clinton conceded, and after the current President met with him, seems problematic at best. Trump promised to respect the results if he was elected, but yesterday tweeted claims that “millions” had voted illegally, which might lead one to expect that some had voted illegally for him, adding legitimacy to a recount or re-evaluation of results.
A Electoral College outcome other than Trump will be labeled a “stolen election,” and there have already been threats of violence by surprisingly serious people. Some of those who might engage in violence are already are engaged in disgraceful and un-American attacks on their fellow citizens based on race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation. They seem to treat the election as a “great disinhibition.” However, as horrifiying as those attacks are, and as many as there are, there are people who would not engage in such attacks but would call the election stolen. That would further undercut the legitimacy of the Federal government. (Chaos and legitimacy is topic that’s been occupying my thoughts for a while, but I have relatively little to say which is new.)
My take: the Electoral College exists for a reason. (See the above-linked Federalist #68). The best choice from a very bad set of possibilities is a “caretaker” government. The country is roughly evenly divided in hating either Clinton, Trump, or both. We should select a President who will not push for large changes or mess things up, and can start to address the real class issues which were exposed by the election. A middle of the road Republican and Democrat might be less unpalatable than other options.
Some relevant and interesting links:
- Sandy Levinson, “Will America survive the 2016 Election? A Union on the brink of civil war” and (with others) “The Hail Mary pass that could deny Donald Trump the presidency: It’s up to you, electors.”
- Texas elector who criticized Trump says he’s resigning (rather than vote for Trump).
- “Electoral College must reject Trump unless he sells his business, top lawyers for Bush and Obama say”
- Cook Report tally of votes.
- Law Professort Orin Kerr writes: “The electoral college shouldn’t choose Clinton: A response to Lessig.”
- Of course, when your candidate is ahead, it’s easier to say things like: “Fuck This Fucking Guy: Robert Satiacum, the Washington State Democratic Elector Who Won’t Vote Clinton”
- And many more at Hamilton Electors
Please keep comments civil. Additional interesting links are welcome.
[Update Dec 2: This is a thoughtful, left-wing consideration of the election, which makes the point that no single explanation is dominant. “Everything mattered: lessons from 2016’s bizarre presidential election.” Also, seven electors are now looking to strike a deal: “Teen becomes seventh ‘faithless elector’ to protest Trump as president-elect.” By the way, there’s probably an interesting story in how a 19 year old becomes a member of the Electoral College. Lastly, the Economist has an article on “Why an electoral college rebellion would be a bad idea.”]
[Update Dec 8: “Dump the electoral college? Bad idea, says Al Gore’s former campaign chairman.,” which includes the argument “it forces candidates to campaign in a variety of closely contested races, where political debate is typically robust.” Despite that, Texas Republican Elector Christopher Suprun has written “Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump.”]
[Update Dec 12: Videos: from one of the Hamilton Electors, Tucker Carlson vs. 2 Electors. “Electors demand intelligence briefing before Electoral College vote.”]
[Update Dec 15: “Virginia congressman calls for delay in electoral college vote,” and the open letter “Bipartisan Electors Ask James Clapper: Release Facts on Outside Interference in U.S. Election” now has over 50 signatures, and NBC is reporting that “Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack,” and that has to play into questions about legitimacy and the choice of Electors.]
2 comments on "Electoral Chaos"
The idea that people might actually read the Constitution is very radical. And the idea that the candidate with more votes should win is equally radical. It’s not a question of who is more popular, or more disliked. This is about votes. I hope the electors will take their responsibilities seriously.
The fact that we’re having this conversation at all bodes ill for a fifty-state Union. While the Electoral College was necessary in order to get the smaller states to accept the Constitution in the 18th century, it may trigger the end of the Republic in the 21st. A secession movement has started in California and other populous Blue states may not be far behind. And today’s Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln – I doubt they would go to war to keep Blue states from leaving. This isn’t just the post-truth era; it may be the post-American era.
Comments are closed.