A friend sent this. What do you think?
"I reread the Constitution, and the twelfth and twentieth amendments. I can’t see any real restriction on the Electors, nothing legally to stop them ditching both Trump and Clinton. Also, I can’t see anything mandating that the election be held, only that Obama’s term is up. There doesn’t seem to be a constitutional prohibition on not having a president for four years.
“Alternatively, in the event of no qualified president having been elected, it seems the Congress can appoint anyone it wants. Since a majority in the Congress oppose both Trump and Clinton, as does the majority of the American people, I don’t understand why this is not being pursued. Wouldn’t that be the democratic thing to do?
It does not seem legally necessary to have this election in November with these two candidates. And since it should be obvious to anyone that the majority of the American people do not want this election with these two candidates, I do not see why it is proceeding. All that is needed is for the Electors or the Congress to do their obvious duty in these circumstances.
If not, then we will be in the untenable position that we do not have a government of the people by the people for the people; we will not have the consent of the governed; and so the government will, sadly, be illegitimate.”
I know it would never happen–there are too many moneyed interests involved to stop it–but I think it’s worth thinking about.
Electors or the Congress to do their obvious duty in these circumstances.Sounds great only one problem the Republicans control Congress, with quite a fraction seeming to belong to the Burn It Down variety.
Electors or the Congress to do their obvious duty in these circumstances.Sounds great only one problem the Republicans control Congress, with quite a fraction seeming to belong to the Burn It Down variety. I know! A big fly in the ointment. It would have to be a compromise, though. There are enough Democrats in Congress to prevent Republicans running away with it. Lois
Show me the taxes and the possible implication of his foreign holdings!
There is that old saying:
“You can fool some of the people all the time,
you can fool all of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all of the time”.
Show me the taxes and the possible implication of his foreign holdings! There is that old saying: "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time".A Trump presidency could change that.
Electors or the Congress to do their obvious duty in these circumstances.Sounds great only one problem the Republicans control Congress, with quite a fraction seeming to belong to the Burn It Down variety. I know! A big fly in the ointment. It would have to be a compromise, though. There are enough Democrats in Congress to prevent Republicans running away with it. Lois There is apparently a lot of wouda cudda shooda concerning this and most is nonsense. Frist true, the electors can vote as they wish. Second if there is no winner in the Electoral College the Congress gets to choose the President. Third no compromise is called for by Congress and I can assure you that the President will be a member of the majority party in Congress. FOURT, cut the nonsense, get out and vote so we the people will have a reasonable chance of deciding who will be our next President.
Your “friend” would first have to convince me that a majority don’t want this president. Apathy does not count as a vote, not in any philosophy or political system. A majority of Congress means nothing beyond Congress and want Congress can do. Does the “checks and balances” mean nothing? Does this person have any logic other than pointing to amendments?
Your "friend" would first have to convince me that a majority don't want this president. Apathy does not count as a vote, not in any philosophy or political system. A majority of Congress means nothing beyond Congress and want Congress can do. Does the "checks and balances" mean nothing? Does this person have any logic other than pointing to amendments?The Constitution says what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter if it's in the body or in the amendments. The Bill of Rights is made up of 10 Amendments. Would you also like to ignore them? The limit on a President serving only two terms is also an amendment. Would you like to ignore that? Are you suggesting that amendments shouldn't count? I have no idea if this is a possible solution to the circus we are experiencing now. I offered it as a talking point. If the present Congress were to appoint a President it would be a Republican, with all the destruction that that would entail. I am not in favor of it, I just wanted it to be a discussion topic. In addition, if the election doesn't show a clear winner, it will go to Congress. What then?
A more reasonable, and probably doable option, that achieves the same things would be to implement two things in conjunction: 1) Mandatory voting and 2) A standing “none of the above” option. I think most people who don’t vote are apathetic not because they truly don’t care, but because they’ve learned their vote rarely actually counts. And so if they vote, or think about it, it’s the worse of two evils, and that in itself creates greater apathy. And this stupid “not voting is itself a vote” is just that…stupid. People want to vote FOR someone. It’s just that the options are usually just so bad. So these two steps would go a long way to helping people register their disgust by voting for none of the above. And actually, just implementing the none of the above option would go a long way to solving apathy.
The only thing I’m questioning is the complete lack of any explanation of what this friend is suggesting. There is nothing to discuss.