[EL] In support of the "Hamilton Electors" Re: Lessig Urges Faithless...

[Thomas J. Cares]

Let's call them 'hero electors' not faithless electors (or some of them are
calling themselves Hamilton Electors).

Trump is not taking his stature as President-Elect seriously.

Making unsubstantiated claims that millions voted illegally.

Threatening to take away citizenship for burning a flag.

He's not taking this seriously.

Saying the electoral college has to follow this prescription no matter what
(when that's not in the Constitution that Trump has expressed every
intention to abuse!), is like saying jurors must convict based on a
confession, even when other factors make it reckless to assume guilt based
on that.

It would be reckless for the electoral college to vote for Trump.
Their qualifications don't matter. They can act as de facto jurors who
and convict, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Trump will abuse the
constitution, as well as fundamental human rights, and that it would be
reckless to cast their votes for him.

I have been in contact with a democratic elector - Mr. Bret Chiafalo - who
I believe is working with other electors to rally sufficient support for a
compromise candidate.

They are holding a press conference at 11:30am PST
https://www.facebook.com/events/1704875906471333/

Here is their Facebook group, for those of you who may have an academic or
professional interest in their efforts -
https://www.facebook.com/HamiltonElectors/

Their work is the height of heroism!

Sincerely,
Thomas Jefferson Cares

The founders gave us "A republic, if [we] can keep it."

If we give the Presidency to Trump to honor a twisted process where the 270
vote requirement forces us to only have two strong candidates, which forces
us to have these erratic primaries, which is practically scientifically
proven now to yield candidates most voters find putrid, we are not doing
our part to keep the republic. Trump will do serious irreparable harm to
the republic.

Anyway, my thesis is that the the EC should act as a jury and be applauded
for doing so. Not one of you experts could support his assertion that
millions voted illegally. He has borderline dementia (and proudly exhibits
this on Twitter!). It would be reckless for the electors to vote for him.



On Friday, November 25, 2016, David Holtzman, Esq. <david at holtzmanlaw.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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/20161130/c221ef52/attachment.html>