A Colorado judge is telling the state’s Electoral College, who are currently suing to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, that they face jail time and a fine if they vote for someone other than who the majority voted for. While the electors may seem like they hate Clinton, many believe it’s just another ploy to steal the election from Trump. WHile electors who vote against the majority of their state are EXTREMELY RARE, this election may set a new precedence.
Monday can’t come soon enough and this can all be over.
The Blaze had this to say:
Colorado’s nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state’s popular vote, a judge ruled Tuesday, effectively stopping the state’s electors from joining a longshot effort to unite with Republicans behind a compromise presidential candidate other than Donald Trump.
Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs also ruled that any electors who fail to do so can immediately be replaced when the Electoral College convenes Dec. 19. She responded to a request from Colorado’s secretary of state, who was seeking a way to prevent electors from diverging from the winner of the state’s popular vote.
Two electors sued to overturn a law that said they had to pull the electoral lever for the candidate who won the majority vote in Colorado, which was Clinton. But the reason they want to vote for another candidate is to encourage other electors to pull their votes from Trump and vote for a moderate Republican instead.
At least one other Colorado elector has said he will vote for someone other than Clinton in a bid to woo Republican electors to a different GOP candidate, such as Mitt Romney. Only one Republican elector nationally has publicly said he would do that.
The electors say that their free speech rights are being undermined by the law that will impose a fine of $1,000 and a year in jail if they vote for someone other than Hillary.
Is that complicated enough for you?