As noted here previously, there is no Constitutional requirement that members of the Electoral College vote for any particular candidate when choosing a President and Vice President. It has been customary that the candidate who collects the most votes in any individual state gets the support of all the electors in that state.
By that count, Donald Trump gathered enough electoral votes in enough states to win through to the Presidency. However, the electors have not yet formalized that victory, and that won't happen until they meet on December 19.
Meanwhile, electors face a crisis of conscience. Do they vote for a candidate they know is unfit, in addition to falling behind in the nationwide popular vote by some 2.6 million votes, or do they fill their constitutional and moral duty and choose someone for President who is in fact qualified and fit to lead the country?
So far, two electors -- both from Texas -- have publicly said they cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump. One has resigned from the group, and the other has said (in an Op-Ed column in today's New York Times) he will not vote for Trump and has urged his fellow electors to choose someone else.
It's important to remember, therefore, that there is no guarantee that Trump will be inaugurated President come January 20, 2017. It's entirely possible that when the electors meet on December 19, they will choose someone else.
Whom they choose will be up to them. The Constitution does not require that the President be the one preferred by the most voting citizens. In fact, this is the only federal office not filled by a direct vote of the people. The Electoral College was set up to prevent a demagogue from hypnotizing the public into putting an unfit candidate into the Presidency.
In two weeks, we'll know whether the system works as intended.
No comments:
Post a Comment