They’re really, really, stretching here

More than 50 Electoral College members who voted for Donald Trump were ineligible to serve as presidential electors because they did not live in the congressional districts they represented or held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders.

Thus Donald Trump should not be President:

“We have a list of 50 illegal electors,” Clayton said. “That puts Donald Trump below the threshold that he needs to be elected president. Let’s debate it in an open session. According to the Constitution, the Congress, if nobody wins on the first round of balloting, picks from the top three candidates. That will be Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Colin Powell.”

Ho hum.

What is amusing though is that the transgressions are the sort of minor thing that happen in any complex organisation. And yet these people doing the complaining are the ones insistent that government can solve all our ills.

You know, government fucks up so let’s have more of it?

31 thoughts on “They’re really, really, stretching here”

  1. The Inimitable Steve


    “Trump’s ascension to the presidency is completely illegitimate,” said Ryan Clayton of Americans Take Action, who is promoting the effort. “It’s not just Russians hacking our democracy. It’s not just voter suppression at unprecedented levels. It is also [that] there are Republicans illegally casting ballots in the Electoral College, and in a sufficient number that the results of the Electoral College proceedings are illegitimate as well.”

    Completely bipartisan, you guise.

    Pam Bondi is the attorney general of the state of Florida and the Florida Constitution says that you cannot hold two offices.

    Mmkay. No idea if being in the electoral college counts as public office in the sense he means, but let’s roll with it anyway…

    And she holds the office of Attorney General and she holds the office of federal elector in the Electoral College. That is a violation of the law. That is a violation of the Constitution. And the vote that she cast in this election is illegal.

    Nope. It’d be in conflict with Florida law at most, if that, so she might be subject to local difficulties. But federal law overrides that, because federal. Just as a local bylaw can’t nullify, say, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

  2. Bloke in Costa Rica

    This is from Alternet via Salon so it’s in the statue-of-Elvis-found-on-Moon category of ridiculous hysterical bullshit. These people should still be crushed like insects, of course.

  3. HTF do you become a member of the electoral college, anyway? Collect enough token off packets of laundry soap? Auctions on E-bay? Inherit it? Presumably, in Chicago or Detroit, you mug a previous member.

  4. @BiS: It’s a kind of meaningless honor thing in the US that party bosses can bestow on people they owe a favor or people they want something from. “Sorry we gave the comptroller job to someone else. Wanna be an elector?”

    Also, the guy wants to give the decision to Congress? Congress is more Republican than the electoral college.

  5. These college electors weren’t picked at the last minute, were they now? So the likes of Clayton and Rosenfeld had plenty of time to point this out before the electoral college vote. Or indeed the public vote.

    Funny they’re bringing it up now. Can’t think why.

  6. If these fuckers really did believe that Trump is Hitler they wouldn’t dare produce this sort of crap, because they’d know he’d have them shot.

  7. The president of the Florida state senate is a federal office? Well, I learn something new every day.
    Colin Powell for President? Fine by me – only trouble is that he’s turned the job down.

  8. “And yet these people doing the complaining are the ones insistent that government can solve all our ills.”

    In case you hadn’t noticed most Americans think government can solve all our ills. The difference is the perceived ills. The statement just doesn’t fit reality.

  9. Actually, the law cited exists… It precludes federal officeholders from being electors. It does not bar state, county or local level officeholders from being electors.

    Beyond that, each state is given the authority to regulate who may, or may not, be electors. Each state also has mechanisms to vet and certify every individual nominated for the position of elector.

    Once again, we have “professional” journalists pushing a fake news story that fits their agenda because they are either too stupid to know the subject at hand and/or too lazy to verify the accuracy of said story.

    There’s a reason I object to you calling yourself a journalist, Timmy, and this is it.

  10. They’ve gone through all 538 electors and found 50 unqualified electors and all 50 are Trump electors? No, they’ve gone through the Trump electors and found 50 unqualified electors. With a small finite set you test EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, you DO NOT test only those that break your prefered theory. Odds on there are 50 unqualified Trump electors and 40 unqualified Clinton electors, so Trump still wins.

    I’ve had people present better arguments at a Hot Food Licensing hearing.

  11. “No, they’ve gone through the Trump electors and found 50 electors that they can vaguely claim to the honking seals are unqualified.”

    There, fixed that for you.

  12. @ DtP
    Thanks – I had no idea where to look it up.
    In future can you tell me about the USA and check with me if there is a question about UK rules?

  13. Here’s the link you need:

    Note the very first two sentences: The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of Electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    Clearly the highly trained professional journalists at Raw Story, AlterNet and Slate don’t understand the phrase “under the United States”.


  14. Here’s more:

    Money quote: Under the Constitution, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, with one exception regarding the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that “no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States” may be appointed as an elector. It is not settled as to whether this restriction extends to all Federal officials regardless of their level of authority or the capacity in which they serve, but we advise the States that the restriction could disqualify any person who holds a Federal government job from serving as an elector.

    All found in less than five minutes with one Google search: “Electors”.


  15. So Much For Subtlety

    Rob – “These people aren’t just fascists, they are unbelievably bad losers too.”

    This. These people are exceptionally bad losers. And think, if they are doing this from outside the White House, if they are doing this without much control over the levers of power, what might they do if the voters are ever dumb enough to let them back in?

    Venezuelan Supreme Court?

  16. All this, yet apparently there was no process requiring Obama to prove he was indeed a natural born citizen of the USA, and to ask him to do so was racist.

  17. Jgh

    ‘I’ve had people present better arguments at a Hot Food Licensing hearing.’

    This did make me laugh out loud to increasingly baffled looks from my work colleagues!

  18. Clearly the highly trained professional journalists at Raw Story, AlterNet and Slate don’t understand the phrase “under the United States”.

    They probably read that as “in the United States”.

    I don’t think Salon believes much in the meaning of specific words.

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    Does it matter? AIUI in most States Electors are required to vote as instructed anyway. From elsewhere in DtP’s excellent link:

    Who selects the Electors?
    Choosing each state’s Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state’s Electors by casting their ballots for President.

    The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state and varies from state to state. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party’s central committee. This happens in each state for each party by whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential Electors.

    Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party’s Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential Electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each state.)

    The second part of the process happens on Election Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state’s Electors. The potential Electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each state.

    The winning Presidential candidate’s slate of potential Electors are appointed as the state’s Electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

    So even if they had put someone in place who didn’t contravene the rules (I get DtP’s point that they weren’t but lets go with the original claim) they would have still voted Trump.

  20. Paul Carlton said:
    “It would probably be like the recount, Clinton lost more votes”

    And the disloyal elector campaign.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *