When Should the Electoral College Uphold Hamilton's Oath?

[volprof]

Alexander Hamilton, in the sixty-eighth of the Federalist Papers, which is all about the Electoral College, insisted that while it is “desirable” that the “sense of the people should operate in” the selection of America’s commander-in-chief, it is “equally desirable that the immediate election be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” (Emphasis added. Of course, in 2016, the Electoral College consists of both men and women.)

In other words, according to the instruction book for the US Constitution, which is what the Federalist Papers amount to, the members of the Electoral College must each make their own personal best call when it comes to the deadly serious business of selecting a president.

Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers envisioned an Electoral College that was wiser and more temperate than the people back home whom they represented. They designed the Electoral College as a kind of Constitutional safety mechanism. And if you’re a member of the Electoral College, you should know that you are that safety mechanism.

https://extranewsfeed.com/electoral...tions-say-history-has-21e8a981bb77#.f4bvmsdbd

This keeps running through my mind. What does it all mean? Did our Founders anticipate a Hitler-type? And that such a figure was the only acceptable one to negate? Or did they anticipate something seemingly more benign, but nearly as domestically deleterious?

Many of you won't like it, and that's to be expected. But I keep asking myself that if not Trump, then when will an Electorate act, if ever?

Since the rules aren't clear regarding what an Electorate should do, I'll try to make this simpler. An Electorate should act against the people's vote when and only when one of the following two sets of criteria are met:

Automatic Dismissal #1 (Either/or):

1. President-elect is so clearly mentally deficient as to be beyond objective denial. This would mean that the President-elect is either diagnosed as such or offers public displays demonstrating as much, such as overt mental episodes like crying (senselessly) in public, having public mental delusions, etc.

2. President-elect has a record of acting against the mandates of the Constitution or of publicly saying things counter to Constitutional values.

Automatic Dismissal #2 (And):

1. President-elect has a public record of mental insufficiency for the job of the Office of the President of the United States of America. This does not have to be a diagnosed illness but enough of a public record of incompetent mental actions so as to warrant sufficient concern about mental competence for the office.

2. President-elect must also demonstrate public statements counter to Constitutional values.

Under such an outlook of the Electorate's obligation, I see no way, shape, or form that Trump passes Automatic Dismissal #2.

Many postmodernists on here will disagree with me, but my question is honest: if not Trump, then when? Do the American people have to elect Mao before the Electoral College acts? This is an issue that has never been settled because it's never been applied.

And yes, I am calling upon our Electorate to act now. There has never been a more clear threat to our system, under such objective criteria, as Trump.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Agreed. Replace him with Cheney NOW!

 

[Grand Vol]

You forgot:

Automatic Dismissal #3:

Because VolProf says

 

[joevol320]

https://extranewsfeed.com/electoral...tions-say-history-has-21e8a981bb77#.f4bvmsdbd

This keeps running through my mind. What does it all mean? Did our Founders anticipate a Hitler-type? And that such a figure was the only acceptable one to negate? Or did they anticipate something seemingly more benign, but nearly as domestically deleterious?

Many of you won't like it, and that's to be expected. But I keep asking myself that if not Trump, then when will an Electorate act, if ever?

Since the rules aren't clear regarding what an Electorate should do, I'll try to make this simpler. An Electorate should act against the people's vote when and only when one of the following two sets of criteria are met:

Automatic Dismissal #1 (Either/or):

1. President-elect is so clearly mentally deficient as to be beyond objective denial. This would mean that the President-elect is either diagnosed as such or offers public displays demonstrating as much, such as overt mental episodes like crying (senselessly) in public, having public mental delusions, etc.

2. President-elect has a record of acting against the mandates of the Constitution or of publicly saying things counter to Constitutional values.

Automatic Dismissal #2 (And):

1. President-elect has a public record of mental insufficiency for the job of the Office of the President of the United States of America. This does not have to be a diagnosed illness but enough of a public record of incompetent mental actions so as to warrant sufficient concern about mental competence for the office.

2. President-elect must also demonstrate public statements counter to Constitutional values.

Under such an outlook of the Electorate's obligation, I see no way, shape, or form that Trump passes Automatic Dismissal #2.

Many postmodernists on here will disagree with me, but my question is honest: if not Trump, then when? Do the American people have to elect Mao before the Electoral College acts? This is an issue that has never been settled because it's never been applied.

And yes, I am calling upon our Electorate to act now. There has never been a more clear threat to our system, under such objective criteria, as Trump.

i agree. the problem is obama was elected twice and the electoral college did nothing to protect us against obama.

i find it funny that you accuse Trump of these thing, yet it was hillary who lied about Benghazi, it was hillary who sent top secret info over unsecure servers, it was hillary who gave favors to countries that "donated" to hillary foundation, and that just while she was Sec of state. yet you think that trump is the one with problems.

you're as about as dumb as rocks.

you need to stick with your fantasy land of indoctrinating kids to be idiots and let the adults run the real world.

 

[n_huffhines]

This was the intent of the electoral college, but I'm not sure exercising this power would be good or bad for America.

 

[volprof]

For the record, don't try to refute me with snark comments. If you have a point to make, then make it.

I expect snark out of our resident postmodernists, but I want to hear from you republican (small "R") values folks.

Do you folks disagree with my assessment?

I seriously don't understand when the Electorate should pull this card on the populace if not now. I don't think they required a Hitler, a Mao, or a Stalin. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[volprof]

You forgot:

Automatic Dismissal #3:

Because VolProf says

I know you think I'm some sort of crazy nut, but I think my two scenarios are very fair. Honestly, whether or not you agree with my assessment of Trump, I don't see how you can disagree with my two criteria.

 

[volprof]

i agree. the problem is obama was elected twice and the electoral college did nothing to protect us against obama.

i find it funny that you accuse Trump of these thing, yet it was hillary who lied about Benghazi, it was hillary who sent top secret info over unsecure servers, it was hillary who gave favors to countries that "donated" to hillary foundation, and that just while she was Sec of state. yet you think that trump is the one with problems.

you're as about as dumb as rocks.

you need to stick with your fantasy land of indoctrinating kids to be idiots and let the adults run the real world.

Stopped reading after your first sentence, because, whether you like it or not, Obama qualifies for neither of those.

I know, it's hard to believe, isn't it?

 

[lawgator1]

When this first came up a week or so I said that the line between barely qualified/able to function, versus dangerous demagogue/fundamentally incapable of it, was not clear. But, I added that I did not think that Trump was so far over wherever the line is that he should be subject to this.

There are a few things that would change my mind. And there is certainly potential I feel for Trump to go off the deep end and do something so monumentally stupid as to be indefensible. But he hasn't really done that to this point.

I mean, things like openly courting antagonism with China, including acting in contravention of 60 years of precedent. That's not a sign of disqualifying mental instability. That level of brashness and "shake 'em up" action by him is what people voted for.

I think its horrible judgment. I think it is dangerous. Its an example of why I voted against him. But enough people in the right suburbs picked him, so this is on them, not me. If it blows up in his face, and causes economic turmoil or calamity, that sucks. But its because the American people made a really stupid decision, not because he is fundamentally unqualified.

 

[volprof]

This was the intent of the electoral college, but I'm not sure exercising this power would be good or bad for America.

Excellent. A republican (small "r") poster with a legitimate post, instead of a party/partisan pansy.

Yes, I understand your concerns. I've given them a lot of thought.

I've tried to place myself in the position of these electorate members. I imagine there's a lot of concern for doing the right thing but probably a lot of fear. For one, it's never been done, and they're unsure of how to proceed. And, two, they will most assuredly face death threats, as will their family members. I can't imagine.

But, if we're going to do it finally, I think this is the time. And if the Red Hats want to "grab their muskets," and cross that Rubicon, then so be it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Excellent. A republican (small "r") poster with a legitimate post, instead of a party/partisan pansy.

Yes, I understand your concerns. I've given them a lot of thought.

I've tried to place myself in the position of these electorate members. I imagine there's a lot of concern for doing the right thing but probably a lot of fear. For one, it's never been done, and they're unsure of how to proceed. And, two, they will most assuredly face death threats, as will their family members. I can't imagine.

But, if we're going to do it finally, I think this is the time. And if the Red Hats want to "grab their muskets," and cross that Rubicon, then so be it.

I like the idea of representative voting, because the failure of democracy is in the fact that it's impossible to have an informed and wise electorate. It's just never going to happen. However, the electoral college can be made up of well informed and wise people.

The problem with the electoral college is they can fall prey to special interests and political favoritism.

 

[volprof]

When this first came up a week or so I said that the line between barely qualified/able to function, versus dangerous demagogue/fundamentally incapable of it, was not clear. But, I added that I did not think that Trump was so far over wherever the line is that he should be subject to this.

There are a few things that would change my mind. And there is certainly potential I feel for Trump to go off the deep end and do something so monumentally stupid as to be indefensible. But he hasn't really done that to this point.

I mean, things like openly courting antagonism with China, including acting in contravention of 60 years of precedent. That's not a sign of disqualifying mental instability. That level of brashness and "shake 'em up" action by him is what people voted for.

I think its horrible judgment. I think it is dangerous. Its an example of why I voted against him. But enough people in the right suburbs picked him, so this is on them, not me. If it blows up in his face, and causes economic turmoil or calamity, that sucks. But its because the American people made a really stupid decision, not because he is fundamentally unqualified.

This is a very fair assessment. But I have to disagree about the assessment of his mental competence. I don't even think you addressed his highly questionable remarks regarding our Constitution and its values.

He has demonstrated a clear pattern, over a sufficient amount of time, of being mentally suspect for the job. When we couple this with his questionable statements regarding our most dear values, I just can't write this off, like so many do here, as nothing but "liberal fantasy."

We're talking about our nation!

 

[volprof]

I like the idea of representative voting, because the failure of democracy is in the fact that it's impossible to have an informed and wise electorate. It's just never going to happen. However, the electoral college can be made up of well informed and wise people.

The problem with the electoral college is they can fall prey to special interests and political favoritism.

I agree, and this is why such a decision - as unlikely as it evidently is - will mean war for the Red Hats.

It's a dangerous precedent, and I understand why it's never been used before.

But I just can't understand when we're supposed to use it, if not now. Do we have to elect Hitler, Jr.?

 

[Grand Vol]

I know you think I'm some sort of crazy nut, but I think my two scenarios are very fair. Honestly, whether or not you agree with my assessment of Trump, I don't see how you can disagree with my two criteria.

You are a crazy nut. And here's the Federalist #68 for reference:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

And here's one of my problems with the way the electors are chosen today:

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.

And while Nancy Pelosi's daughter isn't one of the aforementioned, you cannot dispute the fact she, by nature, would be biased towards a particular party. Are you telling me she is free from "sinister bias"? Sinister being debatable of course. But here's a list of Californians on the list:

How Nancy Pelosi's daughter and Dianne Feinstein's granddaughter became part of the electoral college - LA Times

The Democrats’ list is made up of elected officials, relatives of elected officials and other party advocates.

Among the electors are Janine Bera, the wife of Rep. Ami Bera of Elk Grove; Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and chairwoman of the state party’s women’s caucus; Eileen Feinstein Mariano, granddaughter of Sen. Dianne Feinstein; and Olivia Reyes-Becerra, daughter of Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles.

State Assemblywomen Susan Eggman of Stockton and Shirley Weber of San Diego, former state Sen. Christine Kehoe of San Diego, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nury Martinez and Laphonza Butler, president of the Service Employees International Union chapter that represents home care employees, also are on the list.

Look at that list and tell me who is unbiased...

But we'll move on to the next item which is the duty of the electors themselves. The article you pointed to goes to great lengths to twist and interpret items from the Federalist #68 to suit their own desires. At no point does it say they should vote against the People's will. Just to make sure the person they are choosing as President meets the requirements set for under the Constitution. And at this point, Trump meets the requirements.

The only leg they have to stand on is this:

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.

In which the Russian connection, if it exists, might be plausible. But since your article decided not to address it, I'll let you have at it.

 

[FLVOL_79]

See that was a long time ago..they couldn't have predicted the current political/ethnic/gender issues of the day..you know..just like the second amendment is dated and they couldn't have foreseen the weapons of the future.....

 

[IPleadInsanity]

I know you think I'm some sort of crazy nut, but I think my two scenarios are very fair. Honestly, whether or not you agree with my assessment of Trump, I don't see how you can disagree with my two criteria.

Obama (most unqualified person to ever hold the office) seemed as bad to Republicans as Trump seems to Democrats. Bush was certainly a place where this issue might be discussed. Point is it was not even considered in those cases why consider it now? Some people need to be dragged into prosperity scratching and screaming all the way. Give the guy a chance and at least give the impression of unity for a few months.

 

[volprof]

You are a crazy nut. And here's the Federalist #68 for reference:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

And here's one of my problems with the way the electors are chosen today:



And while Nancy Pelosi's daughter isn't one of the aforementioned, you cannot dispute the fact she, by nature, would be biased towards a particular party. Are you telling me she is free from "sinister bias"? Sinister being debatable of course. But here's a list of Californians on the list:

How Nancy Pelosi's daughter and Dianne Feinstein's granddaughter became part of the electoral college - LA Times



Look at that list and tell me who is unbiased...

But we'll move on to the next item which is the duty of the electors themselves. The article you pointed to goes to great lengths to twist and interpret items from the Federalist #68 to suit their own desires. At no point does it say they should vote against the People's will. Just to make sure the person they are choosing as President meets the requirements set for under the Constitution. And at this point, Trump meets the requirements.

The only leg they have to stand on is this:




In which the Russian connection, if it exists, might be plausible. But since your article decided not to address it, I'll let you have at it.

At this point, no, Trump does most certainly not meet the requirements, sir.

He is currently under violation of the Constitution, since he has thus far refused to divest.

Maybe that will change, but nothing this individual has done thus far, ever, convinces me this will be the case.

I think our Electors will spare us from a Constitutional crisis, should they act.

 

[volprof]

Obama (most unqualified person to ever hold the office) seemed as bad to Republicans as Trump seems to Democrats. Bush was certainly a place where this issue might be discussed. Point is it was not even considered in those cases why consider it now? Some people need to be dragged into prosperity scratching and screaming all the way. Give the guy a chance and at least give the impression of unity for a few months.

Obama is not the most unqualified person to ever hold office. Stop talking out your rectum.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If we are going to allow the general public to vote, which I'm not a fan of, then they ought to respect the will of the people.

The only circumstance I can see where it would be appropriate to go against the voting outcome would be if there is substantial, new information that surfaces after the election that would have swayed the election. Pretty high bar in my opinion.

 

[volprof]

If we are going to allow the general public to vote, which I'm not a fan of, then they ought to respect the will of the people.

The only circumstance I can see where it would be appropriate to go against the voting outcome would be if there is substantial, new information that surfaces after the election that would have swayed the election. Pretty high bar in my opinion.

Could you clarify your first paragraph a bit? It's a point that interests me, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, without further clarification.

Also, what's your take on the Russian question? I ask, because that seems very pertinent to your second paragraph.

 

[lawgator1]

GV, just because an elector is biased doesn't mean they can't also have a legitimate concern. In fact, in most cases, I would think that the first to voice a concern would be a member of the opposite party.

The issue is whether enough of them, on either side, develop enough worry that's it's a real possibility.

So I get being dismissive of it now as sour grapes. There is surely an element of that. But at the same time it could evolve to the point enough others will shift over too.

Probably won't reach that point. But reality is that if it is to be invoked, it is going to start this way.

 

[SamRebel35]

3: when Russia tries to undermine our democracy by showing us proof of the Democrats trying to undermine our democracy.

 

[joevol320]

Stopped reading after your first sentence, because, whether you like it or not, Obama qualifies for neither of those.

I know, it's hard to believe, isn't it?

you obviously did read the whole post. don't lie.

 

[volprof]

GV, just because an elector is biased doesn't mean they can't also have a legitimate concern. In fact, in most cases, I would think that the first to voice a concern would be a member of the opposite party.

The issue is whether enough of them, on either side, develop enough worry that's it's a real possibility.

So I get being dismissive of it now as sour grapes. There is surely an element of that. But at the same time it could evolve to the point enough others will shift over too.

Probably won't reach that point. But reality is that if it is to be invoked, it is going to start this way.

I've always said that you're actually one of the best posters on this site. The jokes about you are mostly just from a bunch of partisan hacks who can't think outside their anal cavity. Sure, you're biased; everyone is. But you offer far more to this board than the majority of the clowns on here, most of whom constantly deride you.

Which is to say, I think your post does a great job of weighing the troubling nature of such a decision as I posit.

Well done.

 

[volprof]

you obviously did read the whole post. don't lie.

You edited it by the time I posted.