That day is, of course, is when the 538 electors will cast their votes for a new POTUS. Folks from both sides of the duopoly are urging: #StopTrump. The Green Stein? Well, never mind; for her, it’s “about our democracy”.
The change.org petition to the Electors to change their votes to Clinton.
“We are calling on “Conscientious Electors” to protect the Constitution from Donald Trump, and to support the national popular vote winner.
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.”, etc.
As of this morning, the petition has 4,806,281 supporters with a goal of 6,000,000. Now as far as I can discover, 12,836869 votes were cast in the recent election, and it’s assumed that all of voters voted in the presidential ‘contest’. Now whether or not the organizers check for ringers signing is anyone’s guess. It’s a strange NGO, imo, including rather hidden funding sources, but philanthropy.com was breathless about Pierre Omidyar’s having given them $15 million in 2013 ‘with no strings’. (It seems to be a for-profit comodifying looks and emails organization, and has gone through a few crises and rebrandings, who knows how it sits now?)
Additionally, there’s a ‘Stay Home on the 16th to #StopTrump’, no work, no school, no shopping:
“Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68 explained that he saw the role of the Electoral College as one that would protect the people against a dangerous demagogue. If millions of people participate, it will create a much stronger argument for the electors to go faithless.”
And from HamiltonElectors.com: “The Founding Fathers intended the Electoral College to stop an unfit man from becoming President. The Constitution they crafted gives us this tool. Conscience demands that we use it. Electors are pledging to put America first and vote for a qualified Republican alternative who can unify our country. These brave Electors need our support.”
Note: as per da Wiki, Clinton has garnered roughly 48% of the votes to Trump’s 46%. The ‘projected’ electoral count is The ‘projected’ electoral count is Trump 306, Clinton 232.
Now Lawrence Lessig, the (IMO) absurdist Prez candidate (“Fix Campaign Finance, And Resign”) was on Democracy Now recently, touting the ‘The Electoral College Is Constitutionally Allowed to Choose Clinton over Trump’ drumbeats.
“Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, ‘a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice’—and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about ‘winner take all.’ It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom—about whether to overrule ‘the people’ or not—was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.”
At DN!: LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, as I—as you described in summarizing the op-ed, the framers meant for the electors to exercise judgment. And it’s a judgment which is really asking the question: Should we overrule what the people have done? Now, there are some cases where I think they plainly should overrule what the people have done. For example, if a candidate is a crazy person or if it turns out not to be qualified or is a criminal, those would be good reasons to overrule what the people have done. But in this case, there’s no reason for the electors to overrule the popular choice. The popular choice, by more than 2 million votes, is a completely qualified candidate for president. And the principle, that should be a fundamental principle in our democracy, the principle of “one person, one vote,” says that the vote of every American should count equally. And if it does, Hillary Clinton should be the president of the United States.”
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Lessig, your column prompted a number of rebuttals. One was that electors are simply unvetted party loyalists who are ill-equipped to make the independent—to make independent judgments. Your response?
LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, it’s true we don’t know who they are. But I’m not asking them to make a judgment based on their own preferences. I’m asking them to recognize a principle that should be common to all of us. And that principle is the principle of equality. Now, if it turned out that the candidate was insane or the candidate was a criminal, we’d also be calling on them, these people we don’t know, to make a judgment, as the framers of the Constitution expected they would, not to ratify the choice of the people for that candidate. So, the Electoral College is a project that calls on their judgment. If we don’t like it, we can talk about how to eliminate it. I’m not quite convinced we should eliminate it completely. I think it’s important to have a final check be somebody other than the Supreme Court. But given that it’s there, we should take it seriously. And taking it seriously says they should exercise their judgment according to the moral values, the principles that are part of our constitutional tradition today. And those principles say equality.”
Lessig has allied with the law firm Durie Tangri that will advise electors; HuffPo:
“A new organization is offering pro bono legal assistance to any Electoral College member who decides to break with the will of the people in his or her state, in hopes of derailing President-elect Donald Trump before he is sworn in.”
I did get a good chuckle out of this title at Slate: “The Faith of the Faithless Electors; Will enough of them go rogue to stop Donald Trump? Probably not. But the effort alone gives you hope.’; Michelle Goldberg
And of course adding epic fuel to the fire are PropOrNot (here is the WaPo’s ludirously weak-sauce defense to Timberg’s original McCarthyist rant):
“Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.”
The currently deposed Red Queen is all over the MSM decrying #FakeNews, Obama has ordered a full review of the ‘possible’ Russian hacking of the US election, and Jill Stein’s recount petition has asserted ‘foreign agents’ interfered with the election. The Twittersphere is still raging with anti-Trump polemics akin to this:
William Bonzai had a bit of fun with the WaPo, PropOrNot and Clinton’s protestations.
But seriously: just imagine if when the electors’ votes are tabulated on Jan. 20…and Clinton gets crowned Queen of the USA, what might or would ensue? It’s not hard to imagine blood in the streets, isn’t it? What do you think about these schemes?
In her ‘Black Fear in the Age of Trump’, Margaret Kimberly writes:
“Every move Trump makes is followed like a sign of Armageddon. Announcements of his appointments and his bizarre ranting tweets are followed with obsessive fixation like watching a monster movie meant to create terror.”
Her prescription in a nutshell:
“If Trumpism is to be destroyed it cannot be through the same measures that brought us to this ignominious political end. It also can’t be done with the same faces who brought us here or with bought off progressives. Al Gore and Tulsi Gabbard may stop by to kiss Donald’s ring but that doesn’t mean we must either “give him a chance” or believe the end is nigh.
The desire for self-determination brought people out of slavery and out of Jim Crow segregation. It can certainly save us from the alt-right, Donald Trump and an attorney general named Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. We survived the Confederates and we can survive anyone named after them. That will mean shaking off fear, the Democrats, and the black misleaders all at once. We have never had anyone to depend on except ourselves. We do best when we acknowledge and honor that fact.”
Glen Ford adds: ‘Fascism with a Democratic Party Face’, and links to Ms. Kimberly’s ‘Who’s the fascist?’ essay from May.