Electors
from the 30 states Donald Trump carried are being “hounded to abandon”
the president-elect and cast a vote for somebody else when they meet
Monday, the
Associated Press
reports. The effort will not succeed:
A
team of nine AP reporters attempted to contact all 538 electors from
both parties, and was successful in reaching “more than 330 of them.
. . . Only one Republican elector told AP he won’t vote for Trump. . . .
Even a leader of the anti-Trump effort, Bret Chiafalo of Everett,
Washington, calls it a ‘losing bet.’ ” The GOP defector is almost
certainly
Chris Suprun
of Texas, who announced his intention last week in a New York Times op-ed piece.
Call it the “Animal House”
ploy, after this exchange from the classic 1978 comedy: “I think that
this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be
done on somebody’s part!” “We’re just the guys to do it.”
But the idiots have a lot of loud megaphones.
Mediaite
notes that “there’s a
new celebrity PSA out” in which “Martin Sheen,
Richard Schiff, Debra Messing, James Cromwell, BD Wong, Bob Odenkirk,
Moby, and some other big names” urge electors “to do the right thing and
step in to vote their conscience”—that is, the conscience of Sheen,
Schiff, Messing, et al., who can’t stand Trump.
The spot is similar to an
ad that played before Election Day
urging voters to reject Trump. It’s likely to prove even less
persuasive, since its targets, the electors pledged to vote for Trump,
are all Republicans. Were they to heed the celebs’ call, it would be a
breach of faith with both their states’ voters and their party.
The idiots are also getting plenty of respectful attention from the so-called mainstream media.
Politico
reports that Larry Lessig, a Harvard law professor, “claimed Tuesday
that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering
voting against Donald Trump.”
Even
20 would be 17 short of the number required to deny Trump a majority
and send the election to the House for the first time since 1824. (In
that event, each state’s delegation would have one vote, with 26
required to win. Republicans have a majority in the House delegations of
all 30 states Trump carried.) In any case, the under is a very safe
bet:
Lessig’s
claims contradict the assertions of Republican National Committee
sources who report that a GOP whip operation intended to ensure
Republican electors remain loyal to Trump found only one elector . . .
would defy Trump. . . .
Lessig provided no evidence to back up his claim.
So
this is fake news. But the idea of an Electoral College revolt is being
widely propagated by anti-Trump journalists and commentators. Some of
them, like
E.J. Dionne
of the Washington Post, more or less acknowledge that the idea is a
fantasy. They offer three basic arguments for why it should be
entertained nonetheless.
First, that Hillary Clinton “won the popular vote.” In a New York Times op-ed,
Dahlia Lithwick and Davis S. Cohen,
respectively a Slate writer and a law professor, go so far as to assert
that Trump “lost the election by nearly three million votes,” a flatly
false statement since the election is not decided by aggregate popular
vote. (It’s like saying the 2016 World Series ended in a tie because the
Cubs and the Indians scored 27 runs apiece.)
To
say that the Electoral College should defer to the national popular
vote is an exercise in question-begging, one to which Dionne devotes a
full paragraph:
Yet
defenders of the electoral college cannot claim that following the
state results is an explicit “constitutional” obligation. The
Constitution makes no mention of popular election of electors, leaving
the manner of their selection to the states. It’s worth asking why the
national popular vote should be seen as meaningless while the
state-by-state popular vote should be regarded as sacred.
We’d
rephrase the question to use a less loaded term than “sacred,” but in
any case the answer is that in all of living memory—to be precise, in
every election since 1880—every state has allocated its electors on the
basis of popular vote. (In 1876 the Legislature of newly admitted
Colorado appointed the Centennial State’s electors.) Twice before, in
1888 and 2000, the losing candidate had a nationwide popular-vote
plurality, a statistical anomaly that had no bearing on the outcome.
The
Electoral College is consistent with the U.S.’s constitutional
character as a union of states. We suppose we can understand why one
might prefer direct nationwide election by popular vote, but the way to
achieve that would be through a constitutional amendment. Good luck with
that: It’s unlikely the requisite 38 states would agree to defer to
California (where Mrs. Clinton’s margin was more than four million,
meaning that Trump “won the popular vote” in the other 49 states
combined.)
The second argument is Trump is really, really bad. As
David Pozen, another law professor, puts it in another New York Times op-ed:
Many
of Mr. Trump’s critics believe he is not just an embodiment of the
unqualified trickster with “talents for low intrigue, and the little
arts of popularity” feared by Hamilton; they believe he is a one-man
constitutional crisis who empowers white nationalists, conflates his
business interests with the public good and displays contempt for the
rule of law. They fear he could use existing institutions to destroy our
liberal democracy, just as autocrats have done abroad.
If
only Trump’s critics had thought to make those arguments during the
campaign! But of course they did, ad nauseam, and voters in 30 states
with 306 electoral votes, found them unconvincing, or at any rate less
convincing than the arguments against Mrs. Clinton, who by any
reasonable accounting is no bargain either. In other words, Pozen’s
argument is another exercise in begging the question.
The third argument is the claim of “Russian interference,” which this column
discussed Monday. Again, this was widely aired during the campaign, with Mrs. Clinton even calling Trump a “puppet” of Vladimir Putin during a
presidential debate. (Trump’s rejoinder: “You’re the puppet!”)
The
only new element of the Russia story is that the Central Intelligence
Agency reportedly has now expressed the opinion—in a secret report whose
existence somebody leaked to the press—that the Russians were trying to
help Trump win rather than just to cause general mischief. Other U.S.
intelligence agencies reportedly do not agree with the CIA.
So
we have reached a point where the liberal left wants to throw out the
results of an American election on the say-so of . . . the CIA! Frank
Church must be turning in his grave.
When
the electors meet on Monday, the outcome of their vote will be very
close to 305 for Trump, 232 for Mrs. Clinton and 1 for somebody else.
The “Animal House” crowd will have one more opportunity for a really
stupid and futile gesture—on Jan. 6, when Congress meets to certify the
results. One representative and one senator can raise an objection,
which both houses will then have to consider. It happened in 2005, as
CNN
reported at the time:
Alleging
widespread “irregularities” on Election Day, a group of Democrats in
Congress objected . . . to the counting of Ohio’s 20 electoral votes.
The
challenge was defeated 267-31 by the House and 74-1 by the Senate,
clearing the way for the joint session to count the votes from the
remaining states.
The
move was not designed to overturn Bush’s re-election, said Ohio Rep.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the
objection.
Since
Republicans will retain majorities in both houses, no meritless
objection will be sustained next year either. Congress will certify the
result, and President Trump will be sworn in two weeks later. How will
the Times and the Post explain to their readers that all the news they
saw fit to print about faithless electors and congressional challenges
was fake?
