Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ruth Bonner

(192 posts)
9. The fact he is a law breaker justifies, IMO, asking electors to vote based on their conscience,
Sun Nov 20, 2016, 11:02 PM
Nov 2016

and if voting their conscience means voting for Hillary, then that's okay with me.

Is there any information that could come out about him and/or the election that would sway you that electors should be faithless? If there is no boundary beyond which we will break out of social norms and use a fail-safe mechanism placed there by the founders, then I think we are abdicating personal responsibility.

The Democratic Party has superdelegates that act as electors for the party nomination. They can be faithless if the situation warrants it. If John Edwards had gotten the 2008 nomination and then info about him cheating on his wife, who was dying of cancer came out, then superdelegates voting for the next most popular candidate would seem like the right way to go to me.

If we know Trump to be a threat to our democracy then faithless electors could save our ass.

The first time I heard a guy at work mentioned this possibility, I thought it was crap, now I'm wondering.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Activist Headquarters»Electoral College in Play...»Reply #9