On Monday, December 19, 2016, elections will be held in each of the 50 statehouses to determine who shall be the 45th President of the United States. The only people voting in these elections will be 538 citizens who were previously appointed to be Electors and who pledged to vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of the political party that nominated them. With two exceptions, it is a winner-take-all practice by which the candidates with the plurality of the popular vote in each state receive all of the state’s electoral votes. Even where the margin of victory is as little as 1.3% or less of the popular vote, as it was on November 8th in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the victor gets to have all of the Electors, pledged to support him, vote on December 19th. At this writing (11/18/2016), there are 290 Electors prepared to vote in their respective statehouses for Donald J. Trump, as compared with 232 Electors pledged to vote for Hillary R. Clinton. Michigan’s 16 Electors have still not been determined. In order for Mr. Trump to ascend to the presidency, he needs to receive only 270 electoral votes, twenty fewer than are already pledged to vote for him. If for some reason, however, 21 of those 290 Republican Electors choose to withhold their vote for him, then the outcome of the election would be undetermined, until another vote is taken in the U.S. House of Representatives. Indeed, in the early 19th century, both Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams ascended to the presidency only after they were voted in by members of the House.
During the 20th century, there have been eight Electors who cast their votes for a candidate other than the one each had been pledged to support. Their actions were not illegal, and had no bearing on the outcomes of the elections in question. The term “Faithless Elector” has been applied to them, but conscience rather than faith may have been the determinant of their action. In 2000, a D.C. Gore Elector chose to abstain rather than vote for Gore, who was the first man to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote since Benjamin Harrison became President in 1886. Was he a “Faithless Elector” or simply a man of conviction who could not in good conscience vote in accordance with his original pledge? In the late 1960’s, Muhammed Ali “voted” his conscience by abstaining or refusing to be inducted into the armed forces, to participate in a war he did not believe to be just. Eventually, millions of Americans came to the same conclusion about the war, but at the time of his decision, it took considerable courage to risk his career and his reputation because of deeply held personal principles. When he passed away earlier this year, Ali was mourned as one of the world’s great leaders of his time. He was beloved at the end!
In the election of 2016, two famous Republican leaders, beloved by many, voted their conscience when they decided not to vote for the Republican candidate for President. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were the last Republicans to occupy the White House, and are the only surviving Republican ex-Presidents. Bush 41 publically announced that he voted Hillary Clinton; Bush 43 publically announced that he abstained from voting for President, although he voted for all of the other Republicans down ticket. “W” had the courage to abstain rather than to perfunctorily vote straight Republican. The only possible motive that he had for so doing is that he was following his conscience. How in good conscience could he vote for a man who loudly and repeatedly declared his intention to violate the Constitution of the United States, and to act without regard to our treaty and other international obligations as well as to long held values and traditions that have defined our country since Washington took the oath of office almost 228 years ago?
How many of the 290 Republican Electors when first appointed, and how many of the 61 million Trump supporters on or before November 8th may have been fully cognizant of the dangers that their candidate poses for our country? The vast majority of Trump voters were attracted by his powerful messages of demanding fair trade agreements, restoring millions of jobs to middle class America and ensuring that Americans would be protected from the forces of Islamic Jihadist terrorism. Hopefully, only a tiny minority of his backers were responding primarily to the racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, anti-Semitic elements of his campaign. When the Electors pledged to Trump, and when the voters went to the polls, how many acted out of support for his vow to order his subordinates in the military to commit acts of torture, in clear violation of international law? How many championed his declaration that he’d violate First Amendment rights regarding religion, free speech, and freedom of the press in the quest to “make America great again?” How many really favored his determination to disregard due process in using a federal force to round up millions of undocumented immigrants and summarily deport them? How many Trump voters were mobilized to back him because of his readiness to weaken or destroy NATO unless some member nations paid more dues, or to obliterate the international agreement that successfully contained Iran’s nuclear weapons initiative? How many really want us to walk away from our leadership role in the fight against global warming, with the future of the planet at stake? Overall, Trump voters were older Americans. Clinton voters in the 30 to 44 year old group surpassed Trump voters by 8%; Clinton voters in the 18 to 29 year old group surpassed Trump by 18%. The younger voters seemed to have greater concerns about the future of our country and our planet, whereas the older voters were perhaps more concerned about present day financial and/or safety issues. We do not know what percentage of younger or older voters backed Trump primarily because of his outspoken stance on violating our constitution, treaties, and centuries’ old values.
On December 19, 2016, America will have a chance to prevent the horrors of having the fabric of our country ripped to shreds by the next administration. If at least 21 (or 37, if Michigan goes for Trump) of the 290 (or 306) Republican Electors vote their conscience and either vote for another candidate or abstain, then Donald Trump would receive less than the 270 electoral votes necessary to be elected President. All it would take would be for this cadre of patriotic,
courageous Americans to look into the eyes of their children, spouses, relatives and close friends, as well as to look in the mirror, and ask themselves whether they must act in behalf of country. They must consider whether they should cast their electoral votes reflexively, without regard to the distinct possibility that our country as we know and love it, our democracy, may be destroyed beyond recognition for years or decades to come. In the immediate aftermath of the election, many hoped that Mr. Trump, the statesman, would emerge at long last, and replace the bombastic, narcissistic, emotionally fixated adolescent, misogynist, bully who was on display throughout the campaign. Many fancifully hoped that he would jettison his worst plans for creating an isolationist, oligarchic, white supremacist, middle class vanishing society once he takes the oath of office. Some of his earliest post-election personnel decisions suggest otherwise. We very well may be facing the greatest threat to the integrity of our democracy in the history of the United States. Up until now, the greatest threat came from within, at the dawn of the Civil War, but at least we had Abraham Lincoln to rely upon to survive.
If a sufficient number of Republican Electors act courageously on December 19th, it would be left for the 435 members of the House of Representatives to select the 45th President. The Republican led House could elect Trump, if the vote were to be strictly on party lines. Alternatively, it could elect Clinton or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate who garnered the third most votes in the general election. The eyes of the world, not to mention congressional constituents, would be on the 435 Representatives. This vote would be very transparent. Would Representatives reflexively vote along party lines, or would enough vote according to conscience and the good of our country. Those who’d vote Trump would thereby be accepting responsibility for whatever travesty follows. Those Republican Representatives who could not in good conscience vote for Clinton, could still vote for Johnson, someone who has leaned Republican in the past and who has administrative experience as Governor of New Mexico. He might very well be a facilitator in helping many Republican policy initiatives succeed, while allaying the angst that would exist under Trump concerning loss of civil liberties. It would be up to the 100 members of the U.S. Senate to vote for Vice President, be it Pence, Kaine or William Weld, former Governor of Massachusetts.
Last June, the world was shocked to learn that the citizens of England voted to have their country leave the European Union. In the aftermath of the vote, many who chose Brexit had buyers’ remorse, when they only belatedly learned about the likely realistic negative consequences to England’s economy and to their personal lives. We can’t afford to have the same dynamic play out in the U.S. Twenty-one or thirty-seven Electors are positioned to spare our country of years of turmoil, and save our democracy… but only if they step up and act as courageously as did “The Greatest,” Muhammed Ali.
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., East Hills, N.Y.
Author, Gregory of Zimbabwe. Overcoming Child Abuse and the Scandal of Diplomatic Immunity
During the 20th century, there have been eight Electors who cast their votes for a candidate other than the one each had been pledged to support. Their actions were not illegal, and had no bearing on the outcomes of the elections in question. The term “Faithless Elector” has been applied to them, but conscience rather than faith may have been the determinant of their action. In 2000, a D.C. Gore Elector chose to abstain rather than vote for Gore, who was the first man to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote since Benjamin Harrison became President in 1886. Was he a “Faithless Elector” or simply a man of conviction who could not in good conscience vote in accordance with his original pledge? In the late 1960’s, Muhammed Ali “voted” his conscience by abstaining or refusing to be inducted into the armed forces, to participate in a war he did not believe to be just. Eventually, millions of Americans came to the same conclusion about the war, but at the time of his decision, it took considerable courage to risk his career and his reputation because of deeply held personal principles. When he passed away earlier this year, Ali was mourned as one of the world’s great leaders of his time. He was beloved at the end!
In the election of 2016, two famous Republican leaders, beloved by many, voted their conscience when they decided not to vote for the Republican candidate for President. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were the last Republicans to occupy the White House, and are the only surviving Republican ex-Presidents. Bush 41 publically announced that he voted Hillary Clinton; Bush 43 publically announced that he abstained from voting for President, although he voted for all of the other Republicans down ticket. “W” had the courage to abstain rather than to perfunctorily vote straight Republican. The only possible motive that he had for so doing is that he was following his conscience. How in good conscience could he vote for a man who loudly and repeatedly declared his intention to violate the Constitution of the United States, and to act without regard to our treaty and other international obligations as well as to long held values and traditions that have defined our country since Washington took the oath of office almost 228 years ago?
How many of the 290 Republican Electors when first appointed, and how many of the 61 million Trump supporters on or before November 8th may have been fully cognizant of the dangers that their candidate poses for our country? The vast majority of Trump voters were attracted by his powerful messages of demanding fair trade agreements, restoring millions of jobs to middle class America and ensuring that Americans would be protected from the forces of Islamic Jihadist terrorism. Hopefully, only a tiny minority of his backers were responding primarily to the racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, anti-Semitic elements of his campaign. When the Electors pledged to Trump, and when the voters went to the polls, how many acted out of support for his vow to order his subordinates in the military to commit acts of torture, in clear violation of international law? How many championed his declaration that he’d violate First Amendment rights regarding religion, free speech, and freedom of the press in the quest to “make America great again?” How many really favored his determination to disregard due process in using a federal force to round up millions of undocumented immigrants and summarily deport them? How many Trump voters were mobilized to back him because of his readiness to weaken or destroy NATO unless some member nations paid more dues, or to obliterate the international agreement that successfully contained Iran’s nuclear weapons initiative? How many really want us to walk away from our leadership role in the fight against global warming, with the future of the planet at stake? Overall, Trump voters were older Americans. Clinton voters in the 30 to 44 year old group surpassed Trump voters by 8%; Clinton voters in the 18 to 29 year old group surpassed Trump by 18%. The younger voters seemed to have greater concerns about the future of our country and our planet, whereas the older voters were perhaps more concerned about present day financial and/or safety issues. We do not know what percentage of younger or older voters backed Trump primarily because of his outspoken stance on violating our constitution, treaties, and centuries’ old values.
On December 19, 2016, America will have a chance to prevent the horrors of having the fabric of our country ripped to shreds by the next administration. If at least 21 (or 37, if Michigan goes for Trump) of the 290 (or 306) Republican Electors vote their conscience and either vote for another candidate or abstain, then Donald Trump would receive less than the 270 electoral votes necessary to be elected President. All it would take would be for this cadre of patriotic,
courageous Americans to look into the eyes of their children, spouses, relatives and close friends, as well as to look in the mirror, and ask themselves whether they must act in behalf of country. They must consider whether they should cast their electoral votes reflexively, without regard to the distinct possibility that our country as we know and love it, our democracy, may be destroyed beyond recognition for years or decades to come. In the immediate aftermath of the election, many hoped that Mr. Trump, the statesman, would emerge at long last, and replace the bombastic, narcissistic, emotionally fixated adolescent, misogynist, bully who was on display throughout the campaign. Many fancifully hoped that he would jettison his worst plans for creating an isolationist, oligarchic, white supremacist, middle class vanishing society once he takes the oath of office. Some of his earliest post-election personnel decisions suggest otherwise. We very well may be facing the greatest threat to the integrity of our democracy in the history of the United States. Up until now, the greatest threat came from within, at the dawn of the Civil War, but at least we had Abraham Lincoln to rely upon to survive.
If a sufficient number of Republican Electors act courageously on December 19th, it would be left for the 435 members of the House of Representatives to select the 45th President. The Republican led House could elect Trump, if the vote were to be strictly on party lines. Alternatively, it could elect Clinton or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate who garnered the third most votes in the general election. The eyes of the world, not to mention congressional constituents, would be on the 435 Representatives. This vote would be very transparent. Would Representatives reflexively vote along party lines, or would enough vote according to conscience and the good of our country. Those who’d vote Trump would thereby be accepting responsibility for whatever travesty follows. Those Republican Representatives who could not in good conscience vote for Clinton, could still vote for Johnson, someone who has leaned Republican in the past and who has administrative experience as Governor of New Mexico. He might very well be a facilitator in helping many Republican policy initiatives succeed, while allaying the angst that would exist under Trump concerning loss of civil liberties. It would be up to the 100 members of the U.S. Senate to vote for Vice President, be it Pence, Kaine or William Weld, former Governor of Massachusetts.
Last June, the world was shocked to learn that the citizens of England voted to have their country leave the European Union. In the aftermath of the vote, many who chose Brexit had buyers’ remorse, when they only belatedly learned about the likely realistic negative consequences to England’s economy and to their personal lives. We can’t afford to have the same dynamic play out in the U.S. Twenty-one or thirty-seven Electors are positioned to spare our country of years of turmoil, and save our democracy… but only if they step up and act as courageously as did “The Greatest,” Muhammed Ali.
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., East Hills, N.Y.
Author, Gregory of Zimbabwe. Overcoming Child Abuse and the Scandal of Diplomatic Immunity
RSS Feed