With the popular vote as it is, their proposed method can actually, LEGALLY work!
Evidently, Democrats are not quite finished fighting for Hillary Clinton. It is a last ditch effort, but it appears to be legal, and if not likely, at least possible.
As of Thursday morning, Democrat Hillary Clinton led Republican Donald Trump in the popular vote by a count of about 280,000. Hillary conceded the Election days ago, as Trump clearly has the required 270 Electoral College votes, compared to Clinton’s 228.
Here are the legal specifics of the Democrats’ plan:
The Constitution says that Electors will meet at their respective state capitals on December 19th. The candidate who won each particular state’s popular vote will gain ALL of that state’s electoral votes.
How many Electoral votes does each state get? It is determined by the number of Congressional Districts in that state, plus one vote for each Senator. The grand total is 538.
Nothing in the Constitution, however, prevents an elector from refusing support of their state’s winning candidate. Alternatively, they could abstain from voting altogether. Abstaining electors are also called “faithless electors.” Currently, 29 states ban the practice of abstaining, however.
Change.org has a petition at this time that is pushing for Electors to choose Clinton rather than Trump, based on the “popular vote” argument. The petition was approaching 200,000 signatures on Thursday morning.
Historically, Electors rarely defect or abstain. During the controversial Bush/Gore Election in 2000, no one withheld their vote for George W. Bush while giving it to Al Gore, though one Elector did abstain.
According to the New York Times, 99% of Electors in our history have voted as pledged.
The Washington Post reports:
Having lost the election, Democrats are fumbling for ways to win its aftermath. The exit polls that explain Trump’s victory, solidified by narrow wins in Rust Belt states, offer them an opportunity: Trump won the election despite a lower favorable rating, more voter angst about his agenda, and almost certainly a lower popular vote total than Clinton.
Is the petition likely to get enough traction to actually be a likelihood? Most think not, though, it is interesting to note, billionaire George Soros once bragged that Electors could be bribed.
Do you believe this effort to be a realistic threat to a Trump Presidency?