Federalist Papers Electoral College

Electors: At this point, “voting your conscience” means electing Donald Trump

Readability

Electors: At this point, "voting your conscience" means electing Donald Trump

Amer­i­cans sup­port­ing can­di­dates other than Don­ald Trump had 17 months to make the case to Amer­ica why he shouldn’t be the next Pres­i­dent of the United States. Based upon the rules set forth in the Con­sti­tu­tion and sub­se­quent elec­tion laws passed over the last 220 years that every can­di­date agreed to when they ini­ti­ated their cam­paigns, Trump won the elec­tion. This mat­ter is set­tled with one viable exception.

Before we get to that excep­tion, let’s dis­cuss the things that are not excep­tions to the rules. They are rel­e­vant because they’re cur­rently being used by the left in an attempted to sab­o­tage Trump’s vic­tory. As a proud mem­ber of the new Fed­er­al­ist Party, it dis­gusts me that so many Democ­rats are attempt­ing to invoke the safe­guards set forth by our founders to sub­vert the pow­ers of the elec­toral col­lege and pre­vent Trump’s ascen­sion to office.

Fear of ridicule, harass­ment, per­se­cu­tion, or phys­i­cal harm are not valid excep­tions for elec­tors to change their votes. It’s a sad state of affairs that we have to point this one out, but that’s the tac­tic that many Democ­rats are using today. Attempt­ing to bully elec­tors isn’t just immoral. It’s against the law, but it’s worse than that. It’s an action that eats away at the foun­da­tion of this nation.

Admi­ra­tion of Hol­ly­wood celebri­ties and their “enlight­ened” per­spec­tives is not a valid excep­tion for elec­tors to change their votes. The ridicu­lous video many of them put out in a plea for elec­tors to change their votes is allow­able and almost admirable… if you for­get that it’s a ridicu­lous video. While I’m skep­ti­cal about its actual core inten­tion, if we take it at face value, it’s still pretty silly. Again, the attempt would be admirable in a way because it’s a pro­tected expres­sion of an opin­ion, but in this case their opin­ion is futile. Even if their mes­sage suc­ceeded, it wouldn’t change the result of the election.

Lastly, mass media anti-​Constitution pro­pa­ganda pushed from the high­est office in the land and spread through the Democ­rats’ main­stream media min­ions is not a valid excep­tion for elec­tors to change their votes. We are a con­sti­tu­tional repub­lic with an elec­toral col­lege safe­guard in place to make sure the worst-​case sce­nario doesn’t hap­pen. Trump may be the worst-​case sce­nario in the minds of many Democ­rats just as Pres­i­dent Obama was the worst-​case sce­nario in the minds of many Repub­li­cans, but nei­ther rep­re­sented a true exis­ten­tial threat to Amer­ica. Obama did dam­age, but we can recover. Trump will do some good and some bad, but it’s unlikely that he will single-​handedly pro­pel us into the abyss.

That brings us to the viable excep­tion. Of the pieces of the Con­sti­tu­tion that were debated by both sides, the elec­toral col­lege was the most agree­able. It was called “excel­lent if not per­fect” for one impor­tant rea­son. Their fear in the 18th cen­tury is pos­si­bly a rel­e­vant fear today. They believed that the elec­tors could have the dis­cern­ment nec­es­sary to make cer­tain the next Pres­i­dent wasn’t planted by a for­eign power.

In The Fed­er­al­ist #68, Alexan­der Hamil­ton wrote:

Noth­ing was more to be desired than that every prac­ti­ca­ble obsta­cle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and cor­rup­tion. These most deadly adver­saries of repub­li­can gov­ern­ment might nat­u­rally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in for­eign pow­ers to gain an improper ascen­dant in our coun­cils. How could they bet­ter grat­ify this, than by rais­ing a crea­ture of their own to the chief mag­is­tracy of the Union? But the con­ven­tion have guarded against all dan­ger of this sort, with the most prov­i­dent and judi­cious atten­tion. They have not made the appoint­ment of the Pres­i­dent to depend on any pre­ex­ist­ing bod­ies of men, who might be tam­pered with before­hand to pros­ti­tute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an imme­di­ate act of the peo­ple of Amer­ica, to be exerted in the choice of per­sons for the tem­po­rary and sole pur­pose of mak­ing the appoint­ment. And they have excluded from eli­gi­bil­ity to this trust, all those who from sit­u­a­tion might be sus­pected of too great devo­tion to the Pres­i­dent in office. No sen­a­tor, rep­re­sen­ta­tive, or other per­son hold­ing a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the num­bers of the elec­tors. Thus with­out cor­rupt­ing the body of the peo­ple, the imme­di­ate agents in the elec­tion will at least enter upon the task free from any sin­is­ter bias.

In short, the founders didn’t sim­ply want to pre­vent a bad choice for Pres­i­dent. They wanted to pre­vent cor­rup­tion in any form but specif­i­cally cor­rup­tion by for­eign pow­ers. While some might make the case that Trump has too many con­nec­tions to Rus­sia, it’s hard to imag­ine that he’s an actual for­eign con­spir­a­tor planted in office to bring down the coun­try. I could eas­ily make a case that Hillary Clin­ton was even more likely to be influ­enced by for­eign pow­ers had she been elected, but she thank­fully was not. With that said, I have called on con­ser­v­a­tive media to help sort this whole Rus­sia busi­ness out.

If elec­tors truly believe that Trump is a Russ­ian plant who will inten­tion­ally bring down the nation on orders from Vladimir Putin, they should exer­cise their rights as elec­tors to pre­vent it. If they believe the more likely sce­nario that he’s a patri­otic Amer­i­can who wants to forge a good rela­tion­ship with Rus­sia, then that’s sim­ply not viable grounds to change their vote. For the sake of as smooth of a tran­si­tion of power as pos­si­ble, the elec­tors should vote for who­ever their state’s vot­ers selected as Pres­i­dent. The final tally should be 306 to Trump, 232 to Clinton.

Americans supporting candidates other than Donald Trump had 17 months to make the case to America why he shouldn’t be the next President of the United States. Based upon the rules set forth in the Constitution and subsequent election laws passed over the last 220 years that every candidate agreed to when they initiated their campaigns, Trump won the election. This matter is settled with one viable exception.

Before we get to that exception, let’s discuss the things that are not exceptions to the rules. They are relevant because they’re currently being used by the left in an attempted to sabotage Trump’s victory. As a proud member of the new Federalist Party, it disgusts me that so many Democrats are attempting to invoke the safeguards set forth by our founders to subvert the powers of the electoral college and prevent Trump’s ascension to office.

Fear of ridicule, harassment, persecution, or physical harm are not valid exceptions for electors to change their votes. It’s a sad state of affairs that we have to point this one out, but that’s the tactic that many Democrats are using today. Attempting to bully electors isn’t just immoral. It’s against the law, but it’s worse than that. It’s an action that eats away at the foundation of this nation.

Admiration of Hollywood celebrities and their “enlightened” perspectives is not a valid exception for electors to change their votes. The ridiculous video many of them put out in a plea for electors to change their votes is allowable and almost admirable… if you forget that it’s a ridiculous video. While I’m skeptical about its actual core intention, if we take it at face value, it’s still pretty silly. Again, the attempt would be admirable in a way because it’s a protected expression of an opinion, but in this case their opinion is futile. Even if their message succeeded, it wouldn’t change the result of the election.

Lastly, mass media anti-Constitution propaganda pushed from the highest office in the land and spread through the Democrats’ mainstream media minions is not a valid exception for electors to change their votes. We are a constitutional republic with an electoral college safeguard in place to make sure the worst-case scenario doesn’t happen. Trump may be the worst-case scenario in the minds of many Democrats just as President Obama was the worst-case scenario in the minds of many Republicans, but neither represented a true existential threat to America. Obama did damage, but we can recover. Trump will do some good and some bad, but it’s unlikely that he will single-handedly propel us into the abyss.

That brings us to the viable exception. Of the pieces of the Constitution that were debated by both sides, the electoral college was the most agreeable. It was called “excellent if not perfect” for one important reason. Their fear in the 18th century is possibly a relevant fear today. They believed that the electors could have the discernment necessary to make certain the next President wasn’t planted by a foreign power.

In The Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.

In short, the founders didn’t simply want to prevent a bad choice for President. They wanted to prevent corruption in any form but specifically corruption by foreign powers. While some might make the case that Trump has too many connections to Russia, it’s hard to imagine that he’s an actual foreign conspirator planted in office to bring down the country. I could easily make a case that Hillary Clinton was even more likely to be influenced by foreign powers had she been elected, but she thankfully was not. With that said, I have called on conservative media to help sort this whole Russia business out.

If electors truly believe that Trump is a Russian plant who will intentionally bring down the nation on orders from Vladimir Putin, they should exercise their rights as electors to prevent it. If they believe the more likely scenario that he’s a patriotic American who wants to forge a good relationship with Russia, then that’s simply not viable grounds to change their vote. For the sake of as smooth of a transition of power as possible, the electors should vote for whoever their state’s voters selected as President. The final tally should be 306 to Trump, 232 to Clinton.