• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan

This is a long shot but, if it works, it will turn politics on it's head, and may signal the beginning of the end of the electoral college as we know it.

Some rogue Republican electors are talking with the Clinton camp, the goal being to have Hillary releasing all her electors to vote for Dennis Kasich on December 19th, when the electoral votes are formally submitted. This will be a tall order. In addition to flipping enough Trump electors to vote for Kasich, Hillary will probably need to overturn the results in one of the 3 recounts states, then pledge those electors, as well as the rest of her electors to Kasich. In Colorado, where it is illegal for an elector to vote for anyone other than the winner of the popular vote in that state, a lawsuit is being filed tomorrow by Republican electors to overturn that law, and they are going to request an emergency hearing.

IMHO, this isn't going to fly, but what will fly will be the fur. This may turn out to be the first political food fight in the History of the United States, and Trump may enter office as "damaged goods", assuming he prevails. The Clinton camp is quiet at this time, and the reason may be the opportunity for her to claim plausible deniability on her part. Hillary may possibly turn out to be a reincarnation of Machiavelli himself. Crooked? You bet your ass she is.

I am about to get me barrels of beer and buckets of pop corn before settling down to watch the mayhem, which may or may not happen. One thing for sure is that there are a few Republican electors around who are not going to cast their vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever. Will the GOP split if they go ahead and attempt this? Nope. The party will explode, whether or not these faithless electors succeed. My prediction? This attempt will fail, if it does take off, but it will damn fun to watch.

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan - POLITICO

From what I have read, these are "rogue" democrat electors. Not republicans. As far as I am aware, there are only two "rogue" republican electors. One in Tecas, and one that says Trum is not "biblically qualified", or something.
 
Maybe they should bear arms?

bustedtees.19356d6d-960b-4d24-811c-3d752d1f.gif

View attachment 67210817
 
From what I have read, these are "rogue" democrat electors. Not republicans. As far as I am aware, there are only two "rogue" republican electors. One in Tecas, and one that says Trum is not "biblically qualified", or something.

Sure, they are all Democrats. That's why the Republican Party picked them, right?

What we have here, folks, is a Logic 101 major failure.

EDIT: Actually, the electors in Colorado and Washington ARE Democats.

Pass the ketchup. I need it for my crow. LOL.
 
Last edited:
From what I have read, these are "rogue" democrat electors. Not republicans. As far as I am aware, there are only two "rogue" republican electors. One in Tecas, and one that says Trum is not "biblically qualified", or something.

Read where?
 
Read The Constitution that says they have to go with the popular vote of their state.

I think you are the one who needs to read the Constitution. Article 2 says each state picks electors "Pledged" to a candidate. It says nothing about whether the vote of that elector is legally binding. Pledges can be broken. In fact, there have been faithless electors in the past.
 
Caution! If this actually happens, then the repercussions might be more disastrous to our national unity than anything seen since the Civil War.

Maybe..
 
Doesn't matter. Electors can vote for whoever they wish. If that choice is Bozo the Clown, then he becomes president. LOL.

Note: In 29 states they must, according to state law, vote for the popular vote winner. But that still leaves 23 states for them to create mayhem with. One of those 23 states is Texas, where one of the electors has published an opinion piece in the New York Times, stating that he will be a faithless elector. As for the 29 other states, a Federal lawsuit is being filed tomorrow, which asks those laws to be ruled unconstitutional.

Note: those laws are unconstitutional, the SCOTUS has even said as much. The only reason they remain on the books is because no faithless elector has ever been charged.
 
I think you are the one who needs to read the Constitution. Article 2 says each state picks electors "Pledged" to a candidate. It says nothing about whether the vote of that elector is legally binding. Pledges can be broken. In fact, there have been faithless electors in the past.

You might want to take your own advice, because The Constitution says no such thing.
 
I think you are the one who needs to read the Constitution. Article 2 says each state picks electors "Pledged" to a candidate. It says nothing about whether the vote of that elector is legally binding. Pledges can be broken. In fact, there have been faithless electors in the past.

No it doesn't

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

nothing about a pledge there...

You claim someone else should read the constitution but you havent read it either...
 
This is a long shot but, if it works, it will turn politics on it's head, and may signal the beginning of the end of the electoral college as we know it.

Some rogue Republican electors are talking with the Clinton camp, the goal being to have Hillary releasing all her electors to vote for Dennis Kasich on December 19th, when the electoral votes are formally submitted. This will be a tall order. In addition to flipping enough Trump electors to vote for Kasich, Hillary will probably need to overturn the results in one of the 3 recounts states, then pledge those electors, as well as the rest of her electors to Kasich. In Colorado, where it is illegal for an elector to vote for anyone other than the winner of the popular vote in that state, a lawsuit is being filed tomorrow by Republican electors to overturn that law, and they are going to request an emergency hearing.

IMHO, this isn't going to fly, but what will fly will be the fur. This may turn out to be the first political food fight in the History of the United States, and Trump may enter office as "damaged goods", assuming he prevails. The Clinton camp is quiet at this time, and the reason may be the opportunity for her to claim plausible deniability on her part. Hillary may possibly turn out to be a reincarnation of Machiavelli himself. Crooked? You bet your ass she is.

I am about to get me barrels of beer and buckets of pop corn before settling down to watch the mayhem, which may or may not happen. One thing for sure is that there are a few Republican electors around who are not going to cast their vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever. Will the GOP split if they go ahead and attempt this? Nope. The party will explode, whether or not these faithless electors succeed. My prediction? This attempt will fail, if it does take off, but it will damn fun to watch.

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan - POLITICO

John Kasich has been an example to follow. Even after accepting defeat and he has gone back on the job in Ohio. He's doing things right there, but I don't think he's going to get all up into this hype again. He really fell for it towards the end there hoping he will be the winner in the primary fight that never happened.
 
You might want to take your own advice, because The Constitution says no such thing.

12th Amendment.............

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;"


What it says is pretty much cut and dried. That electors write the name of the person voted for president... That is, the name that the ELECTOR voted for. The number of votes cast by the ELECTORS for the candidates is then certified and sent to the President of the Senate for counting.

That is all it says.
 
No it doesn't



nothing about a pledge there...

You claim someone else should read the constitution but you havent read it either...

OK, bad choice of words on my part. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says an elector must vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state. Of course, when electors are picked, they take a pledge to vote for the person who won that state, but it is not legally binding. And the 12th Amendment, which changed the way electors were to be picked and who they could vote for, doesn't address that either.
 
Sure, they are all Democrats. That's why the Republican Party picked them, right?

What we have here, folks, is a Logic 101 major failure.

EDIT: Actually, the electors in Colorado and Washington ARE Democats.

Pass the ketchup. I need it for my crow. LOL.

Hah. Happens, but at least you admit it. Well done.
 
So post an article that claims what you're claiming. It's not hard.

Read the OP. The electors are in CO and WA. Those are states that went dem and their electors are democrat. You are right. That wasn't difficult at all.
 
12th Amendment.............

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;"


What it says is pretty much cut and dried. That electors write the name of the person voted for president... That is, the name that the ELECTOR voted for. The number of votes cast by the ELECTORS for the candidates is then certified and sent to the President of the Senate for counting.

That is all it says.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about being legally binding, either. Is this the latest idiotic liberal standard of constitutionality?

BTW, that's the 12th Amendment, not Article 2.
 
Read the OP. The electors are in CO and WA. Those are states that went dem and their electors are democrat. You are right. That wasn't difficult at all.

From what I have read, these are "rogue" democrat electors. Not republicans. As far as I am aware, there are only two "rogue" republican electors. One in Tecas, and one that says Trum is not "biblically qualified", or something.

If they're Democrat electors, they're not "rogue."
 
The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about being legally binding, either. Is this the latest idiotic liberal standard of constitutionality?

BTW, that's the 12th Amendment, not Article 2.

The 12th Amendment superseded part of Article 2. And Article 2 didn't address it either. Try to keep up.

And what does the First Amendment have to do with it????
 
Last edited:
If they're Democrat electors, they're not "rogue."

Call them what you want, but they are not voting for Hillary, as their state voted. They are looking to vote for Kasich, most likely.
 
If they're Democrat electors, they're not "rogue."

If they vote for Kasich they are, since even with Hillary's blessing, if given, they would still be voting against what people in their respective states voted for.
 
If they're Democrat electors, they're not "rogue."

Oh, and I just re-read.. the two "rogue" republican electors that I thought existed are actually only one. The "not biblically qualified" guy is from Texas.
 
OK, bad choice of words on my part. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says an elector must vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state. Of course, when electors are picked, they take a pledge to vote for the person who won that state, but it is not legally binding. And the 12th Amendment, which changed the way electors were to be picked and who they could vote for, doesn't address that either.

The 12th Amendment didn't change who the electors could vote for.
 
Back
Top Bottom