There’s still time: Let’s find enough GOP electors to stop Trump
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College.
You must remember this collection of only white men who owned property did not think much of the masses.
{mosads}They anointed themselves as the elite or “philosopher kings” who would establish the proper machinery and apparatus by which the nation should operate and function.
One of their major objectives was to make very sure that the election of the president of the United States be conducted in the proper way. The “proper way” was not to let the general population determine the outcome.
(By the way, this applied to the Senate as well. There was no direct election of U.S. senators until 1913. They were elected by the respective state legislatures.)
Alexander Hamilton called his countrymen a “great beast.” They were not to be trusted with this essential and most important responsibility.
Electing a president was reserved to people called “electors” in each state. They were to be the buffer which would insure that the right selection take place. It was the Founders’ collective thought that if an extraordinary situation arose and someone who was unqualified, unfit or of questionable character was elected to the highest office in the land, the electors could negate that choice and select someone more fit for the office.
They were, to use the parlance of today, “free agents.”
Well, if there ever was a situation that cried out for the presidential electors to act as free agents, it is right now.
The country has chosen a person whom, by all measures of decency, intelligence, temperament, judgment, business practices and overall persona, is totally and unmistakably unfit. In fact, in my opinion, he is a clear and present danger.
I know my proposed solution will be considered fanciful or highly unlikely, or just plain crazy.
But in extraordinary times, extraordinary things must be done.
The actual election of the president does not take place until the first week of December, when the 50 state electors and the District of Columbia’s electors meet in their respective capitals and cast their vote.
Now, there have been occasions where the electors — these are actual human beings — have acted not with party loyalty, but for a higher reason or belief. There have been 157 “faithless” electors in all, with nine since World War I.
One of the most recent examples was in 2000, when D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons cast a blank ballot rather than vote for Democratic nominee Al Gore. She did so to draw national attention to the District’s lack of voting representation in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
This is what I propose.
It looks like Donald Trump will have 310 electoral votes, counting Michigan and New Hampshire, which are still in doubt. It would take 41 Republican electors to put country above party. (If he does not win those states, only 21 electors are needed.)
What I am advocating is that at least 41 of these electors do what the Founding Fathers intended them to do in certain special cases: When necessary, in the name of national security and preservation of the union, vote for someone whom your state did not vote for.
Are there not 41 profiles in courage who believe that this election needs to be radically altered?
I am firmly aware that these electors were chosen, above all, for their fealty and allegiance to their party. They were selected because they would not ever do such a thing.
But there are times that try human souls and this time is definitely one of them.
If there are 41 profiles in courage, Trump would have 269 electoral votes. The election would be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. One or more of these electors should select someone other than Trump. Then each state congressional delegation would have one vote. Currently, Republicans control more delegations than Democrats.
The U.S. Constitution, as explained to me by constitutional law professor and Rep.-elect Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), provides that all House members would then choose amongst the top three people who received electoral votes.
This plan would necessitate at least one of the electors casting a vote for someone other than Trump and Clinton.
Then the House would have not two candidates, but one more. This one more obviously should be of such stature that he or she would be seriously considered to be president.
I’m fully aware that this proposal will be viewed as fanciful or just plain nuts. But the threat of Trump becoming president justifies this creative and outlandish solution.
There is still time for this proposal to percolate. As I said, the actual election does not take place until the first week of December. Trump is not yet the president-elect; that will not officially happen for three weeks.
Are there not 41 members of the Republican Party who will act as patriots rather than potted plants?
The stakes could not be higher.
I’m serious. Very serious. This idea should be taken seriously.
One concluding thought: The whole idea of the Electoral College should be abolished. In the past 16 years, two candidates — Al Gore and Hillary Clinton — have received more votes in their respective elections than their opponents.
The person who gets the most votes should be declared the winner. That is how the election should be determined.
Let’s use these coming four years to vote for a constitutional amendment that repairs this fundamental flaw in our democracy.
Plotkin is a political analyst, a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a columnist for The Georgetowner.
This piece was corrected at 2:28 p.m. on Dec. 6, 2016.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Regular the hill posts
THE HILL MORNING SHOW
Sidebar Top Image
The Hill Podcasts
