As I've discussed in my first two articles last week, The
Electoral College was meant to act as a ‘fire break’ for uncontrolled voter
frenzy and/or rule by mob, or tyranny of the masses. It can also act as a method
to control a tyrant that controls the ballot boxes or someone who is elected
that is wholly unqualified to be seated as President.
The Constitution provides for the matter by setting up the Electoral
College vote for any time after the second Wednesday of December but before the
inauguration day on January 20th following the year of election.
This is so the electors can be gathered in quorum in the House of Congress and
their ballots cast and be counted. There
is no federal standard for the vote casting, it has not been specified in the Constitution,
and only about half the nation has individual state laws about how the electors
are bound to cast.
In fact, 18 states have no laws at all, nor oaths taken. In
these states, electors are free to cast their states’ ballot for whomsoever
they choose. These states though have a
tradition of casting their ballot for the highest vote recipient in the popular
vote.
Importantly however, in none of the 50 states, no one has
ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as proscribed. Several times before,
electors have gone against the popular vote. The most recent incident has been
when several electors went for Reagan instead of Ford in the 1976 elector
balloting. None were prosecuted despite the state of Washington having laws on
the books to prevent that (since it may be impossible to prosecute due to the
lack of a federal standard in a national election). In theory, the electors could vote a
significantly different direction than the popular vote.
This is what it means to live in a Republic rather than a Democracy.
The popular vote does not directly apply to the choosing of government leaders.
The other possibility is that electors could simply fail to
vote, thus throwing the election into the House, but the Constitution allows
for that, providing alternate electors from the Senate to prevent shenanigans. Only
with complete control of both houses of Congress and the popular vote could a
tyrant essentially maintain power indefinitely, or be thrown out of power by
failing to cast a vote. Recent calls by conservatives to oust Barack Obama
focus on refusing to cast ballots in order to throw the election into a GOP
house fail to mention or understand this nuance in the law. As a matter of historical fact , this HAS been tried before. In the Gore-Bush election several electors chose not to vote, however it did not affect the outcome, and alternate electors cast their vote. Abstaintion of the vote CAN alter College counts (in theory), but problematically is unlikely to.
In the case of Barack Obama though, argument COULD be made
to the Electoral College that he is unfit for duty due to two scandals that
broach the office. The first is the possibility of voter fraud in some of the
inner cities, particularly Philadelphia. Although some may argue that since
there were ZERO votes in many districts for Mitt Romney, the election by default
is fraudulent.
Not necessarily. There are many narrowly defined and
entirely ethnic districts n many inner cities. While is unlikely that he got
zero votes, it’s not an impossibility. Only a significant investigation could
prove it true or untrue and that is unlikely before the ballots are cast before
the end of the year. To tamper with the college, flip the election and change
ballots would quite possibly cause massive rioting and insurrection in most
cities and people would feel cheated on their voting. The same applies to the mischaracterization of the President’s place of birth. Either of these is
insufficient grounds, at this point, to go against the popular vote.
However, the issue of the incident at Benghazi is a
different matter. For one, the investigation could be very brief if people are
called to testify in a short period of time. This is why the Democrats are delaying
testimony and discrediting witnesses (Petraeus, Allen) before their testimony.
Secondly, the consequences of what may have happened are significant—the altering
of documents, misrepresenting facts to congress and conspiracy to commit fraud
and change facts are all felonies under Federal law. While it is not illegal to
lie to the American people, covering up potential malfeasance most certainly
is.
If the House were to level charges of lying, malfeasance and
covering up of facts at the White House BEFORE the Electoral College met, than
a legitimate case to the electors could be made. Since laws either do not exist
or are unenforceable in most states regarding electors changing votes, the
outcome of the election could certainly be reversed with a few states going
from blue to red.
It would be far easier to change the outcome in this manner
than it would through failing to cast ballots and turning the election over to the
House to vote. It also would be preferable to minimize civil unrest. To change the outcome of an election merely for political purposes is anathema to good governance.
Most importantly, this would be in keeping with the original
intent of the Electoral College, which is namely to prevent a criminal, a tyrant
or mob tyranny from dictating who is to lead the nation, as well as promote the
concept of the States themselves deciding the Presidency; not the individual
electorate. James Madison, again:
The State governments
may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government;
whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the
former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the
United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great
share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves
determine it. - James Madison, Article 40, Federalist Papers.
While it’s become common practice as a matter of expediency
and convenience to simply match the college vote to the popular vote, it was
not intended to be an ‘automatic’ win—especially not in the case where the
nation is divided and the President-elect may be under investigation.
Historical convenience is a poor reason to allow a
potentially ‘broken’ candidate from assuming the highest office in the land.
Thus, should investigations turn out to prove fruitful in providing evidence of
malfeasance or criminality, barring the President himself voluntarily stepping
down, the actions of the Electoral College may prove to be valuable, timely and
in keeping with the original intent of its designed purpose—a check and balance
of an over enthusiastic popular vote. It also would exclude political ideology from the Electoral College vote change.
Let us hope they can be so forward thinking in that event, however
unlikely it may happen.