Tomorrow the Electoral College will assemble in state capitols around the country and cast their ballots for the office of President of the United States. It should be noted that the people that are chosen for this honorary position get them not for any real qualification but rather for some inside connection. My own mother was an elector for Ronald Reagan and she got that honor because my brother was active in the leadership of the Republican Party in the state of Utah at the time.
The final count should be 306-232 in favor of Donald Trump. One faithless elector from Texas, Christopher Suprun, has announced that he will vote for another candidate, supposedly John Kasich. In the history of our nation there have been 157 faithless electors. Of that number 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. Three electors chose to abstain rather than vote for their party’s nominee. The other 83 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector. So you an see there is some historical precedent.
Sometimes electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these electors stood alone in their decisions. As of the 2016 election, no elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against his or her party’s designated candidate.
But this election has changed the rules for those on the left. Never before has a campaign been launched urging electors to change their votes. It is unclear what those supporting this effort want. Do they want the electors to switch from Trump to Clinton? Do they want them to vote for another Republican candidate? Do they want them to just not vote? Each of these scenarios creates a different solution. But to accomplish any of them 37 electors would have to participate in one of these schemes to deny Donald Trump the Presidency.
For arguments sake let us assume that 37 of them voted for another candidate other than Hillary Clinton. That would leave Donald Trump with only 269 electoral votes and the election would then move to the House of Representatives. I can say with clear certainty that this would result in the election of Donald Trump. So that would not accomplish what these backing this campaign supposedly seek. The same scenario would occur if 37 electors just did not vote. So the only scenario that would please those pushing for these electors to switch would be for them to change their vote from Trump to Clinton and in that case it would have to be 38 for her to reach the magic number of 270.
In the first two scenarios the outcome will not change but it will increase the belief of those on the left that Donald Trump did not win the election and is not the legitimate President. That is the real goal of this effort. In the third scenario it would undo the election and Hillary Clinton would be the incoming President.
Can anyone imagine the mood of the nation should any of these scenarios play out on Monday? There would be rioting in the streets and the fabric of our electoral system would be irreparably torn. But the people on the left do not seem to care nor do they see the damage they could be doing to the nation and the very freedom that we currently enjoy. There has never been, at least in my lifetime, a campaign so vigorously conducted to urge electors to undo an election. If you turn on your TV you see this video by a bunch of Hollywood types urging 37 electors to vote their conscience and save the nation. In their convoluted world they somehow think the American pubic should substitute their judgment for their own. These are entertainers and nothing more. They bring no expertise to the world of government but they expect the 306 electors pledged to Trump to listen to them and see the wisdom of changing their vote.
If you read the papers you see stories where electors are being harassed with threats if they vote for Trump and the electors report receiving thousand of pieces of mail telling they to change their vote. Then Democrat electors got into the act and started demanding that they get a briefing on Russian influence in the election. I am not sure what they expect to find out. And will it affect how they vote on Monday? Will they suddenly change their vote from Clinton to someone else, anybody else? We know the answer to that question. This is just another attention getting ploy for them to run to the media and say they heard all these terrible things.
Now lets, for arguments sake, put the shoe on the other foot. Lets suppose that Donald Trump won the popular vote and Clinton won the Electoral College. Lets suppose that Conservatives began to mount a campaign to undo the election by urging electors to change their votes. How do you think Democrat would handle this effort? How do you think the media would report it? These are both rhetorical questions because everyone knows the answers.
Conservatives have won elections and lost elections. We don’t like it when we lose but we accept that we have lost. We don’t riot in the streets and damage personal property. We don’t mount campaigns to undo the election. We don’t threaten to leave the country if our candidate loses. (How many want these idiots making those empty headed claims to follow through and actually get on the first plane?) We do lament that we have lost and we promise to ourselves that we will try harder next time. Conservatives love this country no matter who the President is and conservatives will always stand by the nation and defend the freedoms that we enjoy. You never see conservative celebrities say they will leave the country if a liberal wins. We will not act like the world is coming to an end and will not make ourselves look like spoiled brats just because we did not get our way. So to the electors voting tomorrow my advice is remember the values that you cherish and honor your commitment. Even if you don’t really like the candidate that won remember that you are not there to impose your selfish views on the public but rather to represent them and to bring this election to a close.
One final thought on this subject. President Obama has recently said that he was briefed on possible Russian involvement in the hacking of Democrat emails. But in October of this year he said the following: “I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.” He described Trump’s allegations as a threat to American democracy and to the“integrity and trust” of the country’s civic institutions.
“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part, because they are so decentralized,” Obama said. “And so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”
But all of this was when Obama and the Democrats believed that Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide. My how their opinions change once the public has actually voted.
With all the attention being given to Russian involvement in hacking emails and trying to influence our elections I can only think back to the Presidential debate in October of 2012. The candidates at that time were Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney. They were discussing foreign policy and potential threats to the United States. Here is the exchange:
Obama: “You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”
Romney: “Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe…and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin…”
After that exchange Obama took to the campaign trail and ridiculed Romney. I wonder if he is still claiming that Russia is not a threat. Not if you read the papers today and the one that was both naïve and wrong was Obama. Has he admitted he was wrong? Not on your life. President Obama, in his own mind, is never wrong.