The Electors of the Electoral College should decide not to cast their ballots for Donald Trump. On December 19th, 2016...those Electors are not required to vote as their states did. Instead... Electors can choose Hillary Clinton to be our next President, if they so desire. Even in states that do not permit such action, the Electors' votes would still be counted. All those Electors would need to do is pay a small fine...and there's no doubt that supporters of the former Secretary of State would be delighted to shell out such a penalty.
Change.org launched a petition and - as this column is published - nearly 4.7-million Americans, including this writer, have signed it to encourage and basically persuade Electors of the Electoral College to ignore votes from the Tuesday, November 8th election, but rather to cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton.
Change.org - on their Website - says, "Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic." I have been expressing those same views for nearly a year.
The fact of the matter is...Hillary Clinton won the popular vote...and she...and only she...should be the 45th President of the United States. According to a report by The New York Times on Thursday, December 1st, Mrs. Clinton's lead over Trump has topped more than 2.5-million votes. As Change.org says - and I agree - "The only reason Trump 'won' is because of the Electoral College."I recently received an e-mail from a reader of The Controversy, who commented about Change.org's petition. The reader wrote the following regarding the possibility of the Electoral College voting against Trump, but in favor of Mrs. Clinton as our President. "I don't think it has a chance, but if by some crazy way it did, I worry (it) would cause an armed revolt and possible civil war in this country for overthrowing a legally (and) fairly elected President. It would be considered by many (to be) a coup with states seceding from the Union. It could be the end of the United States as we know it. We would become no better than a third world nation."
States seceding from the Union? I didn't realize that my column reached extraterrestrial beings from faraway planets on the other side of our galaxy. Obviously, the aforementioned reader isn't familiar with the U.S. Constitution. That precious document clearly states that the Electors choose our President, not the public. Electors can vote as they want...and there is no legal way to stop them except for the already noted fine in some states. The anonymous reader - whose comments I quoted above - is merely a fear monger...and such action is unacceptable behavior when our country's Constitution allows the Electors to vote as they see fit. Maybe now...Republicans will come to a sane conclusion...and acknowledge that the Electoral College is old hat...and it must be discarded.
The popular vote is what should count. And the majority of Americans who voted in Election 2016 - including, to date, nearly 65.2-million people - believe "we are stronger together"... but only...when we're with...Hillary Clinton.And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B. Duglin.
One of the chief goals of a blog...one of the major reasons to publish a blog...is to entice others to express their opinions about the subject for which the author is writing. The Controversy is being read by a tremendous amount of people throughout the United States of America and all around the world. If you agree or disagree with my commentary...your views are welcomed. Tell me that you find pleasure in reading what I write...or that it's not your "cup of tea." Give your name...make up one...or remain anonymous if you prefer. The Controversy is your outlet to speak your mind and to say what you want about the topics discussed. Please share The Controversy with others by posting it on Facebook, Twitter and on other social media forums. Please also pass a link to everyone in your e-mail directories. The Controversy wants to know your thoughts on the column above or on any other editorial or essay written on this blog.
Now, please express your opinions. Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your remarks in the box that appears. Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish." Thank you for your thoughts and thank you for reading The Controversy.
Photo credits: newyorker.com (Donald Trump), huffingtonpost.com (Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton #1), nbcbayarea.com (Senator Barbara Boxer) and nbcnews.com (Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton #2)
Copyright 2016 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Your column may not reach extraterrestrial beings from faraway planets on the other side of our galaxy but with the views you express many of us may believe that you are an extraterrestrial being from a faraway planet on the other side of the galaxy. I am very aware of the procedure setup in the Constitution on how a President is elected, the only change I would make would be to apportion Electors by Congressional District, you and the left would never go for that because it would have given Donald Trump over 370 votes. You and the Democrats need to remember we do not have a single presidential election in this country we have 51 elections (50 states plus DC) which is how it should be. You keep stating things like “undemocratic system”, I hate to inform you that the United States is not a democracy it is a “Representative Republic” or “Constitutional Republic”. We have 50 states that have a right to be represented as do the citizens of these states. One of the reasons for the Electoral College was to prevent the heavily populated cities and states from controlling the Nation. This procedure makes every state important not just the 8 or 10 big ones. As for change.org and those that support it they may be committing the crime of conspiracy, 29 states have laws making it a crime for electors not vote per the state election, yes it only a misdemeanor but still a crime and any group who encourages a criminal act and even offers to pay the penalties could be guilty of conspiracy of even of violating Federal RICO laws. Senator Boxer can introduce all the legislation to abolish the Electoral College she wants to, you will never get 38 states to back giving up their say in a Presidential election. Once again you have to resort to name calling and lying about the President-elect but it is what we expect out of the left. Just as an aside Trumps approval rating has gone up about 10 points to almost 50% since the election and is still rising. The only thing I will say about your ending statement is the only ones stronger with Hillary is Bill and Hillary Clinton, the only thing they care about is themselves and their power!
ReplyDeleteThe following response to the above reader will be published in several parts. So please read all parts.
DeletePART ONE
Hater, hater, hater. That's what you and so many like you are...you're HAAAAAAAAATERS! You hate Bill and Hillary Clinton and it is tragic.
You can spin Donald Trump's approval rating to be better than it is, but it's not. The CNN Survey has Trump's favorable rating at 47 percent...which is about the same amount of people who voted for him. Therefore, the people who cast their ballots for him are simply telling pollsters exactly how they voted.
I don't lie. Period. End of that comment.
I did not express any "name-calling" in this column so your remark is not applicable.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about when you make statements like "Senator Boxer can introduce all the legislation to abolish the Electoral College she wants to, you will never get 38 states to back giving up their say in a Presidential election." If you knew anything, you'd know that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - or NPVIC - can nullify the Electoral College without any Constitutional Amendment. The NPVIC is an agreement that is before each of our 50 states and the District of Columbia. If a state (and/or DC) passes the NPVIC, it promises to assign its electors to whichever Presidential candidate wins the national popular vote. It would only be effective, though, when enough states have joined the NPVIC, thus guaranteeing a candidate with 270 electoral votes. Ten states and Washington, DC have already joined the NPVIC...for a total of 165 electoral votes so far...or 61.1 percent of the votes needed for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to become effective. If only a few more states throw their hat in to the ring (so to speak) and join the NPVIC, their combined electoral votes will reach 270 and the NPVIC will be legally binding. At that moment, the Electoral College will become obsolete. The winner of the popular vote will automatically be awarded the necesssary electoral votes and, therefore, that candidate would become President of the United States under the U.S. Constitution. Trust me...what I have written are indeed facts. But here's another fact that will knock your socks off. States that refuse to join the NPVIC can do absolutely nothing to stop the popular vote winner from becoming President. Feel free to check it out. You will find out I'm 100 percent correct. So don't come back to me with some mumbo-jumbo lies and other made-up stories, because my research is accurate and documented.
GBD
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
DeleteYou do like to make up stories as you go along. Your entire passage about Change.org's petition is a total joke. Americans who support and/or sign the petition cannot be charged with "committing the crime of conspiracy." The laws are clear - and the Constitution is clear - that the Electors elect the President...not the public...and that the Electors of the Electoral College - as I wrote in my column - are not bound to voting the way their states did. And for those states that do not permit such action - as I said in my commentary - the Electors' votes would still be counted. All those Electors would need to do is pay a small fine...and there's no doubt that supporters of Hillary Clinton would be delighted to shell out such a penalty.
Your ridiculous remark that "One of the reasons for the Electoral College was to prevent the heavily populated cities and states from controlling the Nation" was only applicable when we had 13 states (the original 13 colonies) and perhaps a handful more. Nobody between 1787 and 1789 could ever have imagined the United States of America being a nation of 50 states with more than 325-million people. Therefore, your comment lacks substance and you, I'm sorry to say, need to educate yourself on the facts.
GBD
END OF PART TWO
PART THREE
DeleteTo say that the United States of America is not a democracy is also another of your wrong assumptions. I will quote Eugene Volokh, who is a Constitutional scholar who teaches at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, tort law, copyright law, criminal law and a seminar on firearms regulation policies. He also teaches a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic. Professor Volokh wrote in The Washington Post on May 13th, 2015..."I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of 'republic' is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, 'A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them' — we are that. A common definition of 'democracy' is, 'Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives' — we are that, too. The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. And indeed the American form of government has been called a 'democracy' by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished 'democracy' and 'republic'; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between 'pure democracy' and a 'republic,' only later just saying 'democracy.' But even in that era, 'representative democracy' was understood as a form of democracy, alongside 'pure democracy': John Adams used the term 'representative democracy' in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses 'democracy' to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier 'representative' is omitted. Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is 'inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.' And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing 'democracy' (as opposed to 'despotism'), and without the need to even add the qualifier 'representative.' To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will.
GBD
END OF PART THREE
PART FOUR
DeleteAnd the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, 'democracy' and 'republic' both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier 'representative' would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level. Now one can certainly argue that some aspects of U.S. government should become less direct, and filtered through more layers of representation. One can argue, for instance, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and that U.S. senators should no longer be elected directly by the people, but should return to being elected by state legislators who are elected by the people. Or one can argue for repealing state-and local-level initiative and referendum schemes. Or one can argue for making the Electoral College into a deliberative body, in which the electors are supposed to discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather than being elected solely to vote for particular candidates. And of course one can equally argue for making some aspects of U.S. government more direct, for instance by shifting to truly direct election of the president, or by institute a federal-level initiative and referendum. But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow 'not a democracy, but a republic.' 'Democracy' and 'republic' aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as 'a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people'). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, 'democracy' has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy." End of Professor Volokh's article in The Washington Post.
So yes...you must either be an extraterrestrial being...or - and I'll be kind - you simply need to read some books. But perhaps few people do that today, thus the lack of education when certain people attempt to discuss a wide range of issues. Therefore, my suggestion to you is...visit a library.
GBD
END OF PART FOUR
END OF RESPONSE
I do not hate the Clintons; I see them for what they are and have no respect for them. You on the other hand must truly hate Donald Trump, I don’t think I have ever seen such vitriolic hate for a soon to be President from anyone except you, you are a true hater. I will not discuss most of what you wrote since you are in favor of disenfranchising 60-70% of the United States from having any input in Presidential election that is your right, I believe it to be wrong and against what this Country stands for. As for your statements on if the USA is a democracy you can quote all the left wing educators you want, I’ll stick with the Founding Fathers: Alexander Hamilton asserted that "We are now forming a Republic form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship." Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease is DEMOCRACY." Thomas Jefferson declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." And the Constitution itself states, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Webster`s dictionary states that a Republic is: "A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person…"1 In a democratic form of government, the populace votes on allmatters that affect them, and do not elect others to represent their interests. Therefore, a majority-rules direct democracy gives unlimited power to the majority with no protection of the individual`s God-given inalienable rights or the rights of minority groups. In contrast, in a Republic, the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike. Once again you are wrong!
ReplyDeleteYou can say what you want, but you are indeed a Clinton hater. As for "see(ing) them for what they are and hav(ing) no respect for them"...well...if you truly saw them for who they are, you would have respect for them. Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of our nation's finest Americans.
DeleteI do not hate Donald Trump. I do not hate anybody. But I don't believe he is mentally fit to be President of the United States and I think the man is dangerous. Stand by for one of my upcoming commentaries as you will be floored by what I have written. However, everything I wrote in each of my columns over the last year have been accurate statements and fully truthful. But of course you will never agree with me so I refuse to debate this issue beyond this response.
I provided you with factual quotes from many other "founding fathers" who disagreed with Alexander Hamilton. Plus, as I noted in my earlier response to you, the Constitutional scholar who I quoted, Eugene Volokh, teaches at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, tort law, copyright law, criminal law and a seminar on firearms regulation policies. He also teaches a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic. I will not argue the matter of "democracy vs. republic" any further because it is a controversial issue that Constitutional scholars have spent two centuries debating. But based on most Constitutional experts of today, America is a democracy. So you can use your "wrong" word with anything you want, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. I wish I knew who you were, but you continue to remain anonymous. You truly are an uneducated person who spews venomous words like "you're wrong" and you therefore think that by doing so makes you right. Trust me...that makes you even more wrong. We are done here. GBD