Thursday, 15 December 2016

civics lessons

On Monday, the electors of the US Electoral College travel to their respective state capitols to cast their votes. Most jurisdictions require the representatives to be faithful to the will of their constituency, however a few states allow electors the option to go faithless and, like in Texas, two electors have chosen to resign their commissions rather than assent to Trump and one individual will be going to Austin to vote for someone other than Trump.
Some suggest that up to twenty electors are seriously considering abstaining or changing their votes, which is something truly unprecedented, and pressure groups on both sides are plying their case. What do you think? The numerical constraints the such a system introduces might be by their nature flawed but is it the responsibility of the College to decide elections? Or to ratify the popular vote? Twenty possible dissenters nearly erodes that surplus of thirty-seven that cost team Clinton the presidency, but in the end is unlikely to change the results—still razor-thin no matter how it’s called. A few score of electors are asking that all, prior to casting their ballots, should be debriefed by the intelligence agencies in order to make an informed choice (arguably one not afforded to the general electorate) about the role that Russian interference played in the outcome. Many more are asking that that the ballot be delayed until the investigation is finished. Another affiliate branch within the College plans to abstain and thus narrow the gap to the point where the decision to turned over to the (Republican-controlled) Senate to anoint the next president.