[EL] Lessig Urges Faithless...

[David Holtzman, Esq.]

Rick writes, 
“Turning the electors into mighty platonic guardians doesn’t seem to be the right way to go. So yes, I’d love to get rid of the Electoral College. But not ignore it in an election where everyone agreed it was the set of rules to use. ”

I think here “everyone agreed” pretty much in the sense that everyone involved with a marijuana case -- jurors included -- has agreed that the existing laws are the ones to use, or that everyone during the Vietnam War agreed that the military draft was the way to go. 
N states representing Y% of the population have gone on record saying that the Electoral College is not the way to go.  (NPVC people,  please fill in N and Y.) 

Now,  speaking of electors,  we all know that they are chosen for their loyalty to their candidates,  so they are highly unlikely to be unfaithful.  I wonder to what extent that loyalty is bought.   I’d like to know more about them, and since election law is obsessed with who got how much money from whom and when, perhaps I can pose a couple of questions here. 
Are electors required to file financial disclosure forms?   If so,  where can voters find them? 
Are campaigns allowed to give electors money or things of value?   If so,  what are the limits on that?
Or vice-versa, are there special limits on electors giving to candidates or associated organizations? 
How can people contact electors to lobby them?   Are electors bound by bribery laws or other special restrictions? 
Finally (am curious; probably should already know), must electors be registered voters,  citizens,  of a certain age? 
- dah

---------------
Lessig Urges Faithless Electors Vote for Clinton, Pointing to Popular Vote in a Contest Not Based on Popular Vote
Posted on November 25, 2016 8:34 am by Rick Hasen
WaPo oped.
I find the argument troubling on two levels. First, the electors in the electoral college are not chosen to exercise judgment but to translate the will of the people in each state. If we had a system where we expected them to exercise independent judgment we would spend time vetting them.  Instead, they are generally loyal party members.
Second, relying on the national popular vote to overturn the results of the electoral college seems unfair even if, like me, you believe the electoral college is unfair. The election was run under the electoral college system. Would Clinton have won if both sides were going to run up the popular vote? Perhaps, but it is not a given.
This seems to go against rule of law ideas that we all abide by the rules for an election set in advance. Turning the electors into mighty platonic guardians doesn’t seem to be the right way to go.
So yes, I’d love to get rid of the Electoral College. But not ignore it in an election where everyone agreed it was the set of rules to use

 - - 
Sent from a mobile device.   Forgive me. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161125/c5960e19/attachment.html>