NY Times, Washington Post, Continue To Push To Overturn Election Results Thru Electoral College

The Times and Washington Post have both published numerous articles, opinion pieces masquerading as articles, and opinion pieces since the election brought us President Elect Donald Trump looking to see what could be done to overturn the election, because they, like their Leftist comrades, cannot accept those results. If the shoe was reversed, had Hillary won the election per the Constitution, we’d be treated to a dose of “look, just accept it, stop the shenanigans.” Instead, we get things like

Why G.O.P. Electors Can Vote Against Trump

With the Electoral College set to meet next week, millions of Americans horrified by the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency have implored red-state electors to vote for Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican. Millions of Americans supportive of Mr. Trump find these efforts galling. But both sides agree on what to call such electors: “faithless.”

This is a loaded label. Is it warranted? Do presidential electors have an obligation to ratify their state’s popular vote?

As a matter of state law, the answer is mixed. Just over half of the states have enacted measures that instruct electors to vote for their party’s designated candidate. The rest have not. And even in the states that tell their electors how to vote, the penalties for disobeying tend to be modest and to go unenforced.

Got that? David Pozen, unsurprisingly a very leftist professor at Columbia Law School, and a guy who has been beating this same bandwagon since November 16, is not only suggesting that electors vote for the person who lost in their state, but, to violate the law in many cases.

The entire piece is about deeming that those who refuse to vote for the winner are not really “faithless”, and that they should vote their own conscience, rather than uphold the will of the people in their respective states, up till it ends by saying we should do away with the Electoral College. But, the main point is that the EC should overturn the results because Democrats do not like them and are unable to act like adults.

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr, is also beating the bandwagon that the EC shouldn’t do their job

Memo to the electoral college that votes next Monday: Our tradition — for good reason — tells you that your job is to ratify the state-by-state outcome of the election. The question is whether Trump, Vladimir Putin and, perhaps, Clinton’s popular-vote advantage give you sufficient reason to blow up the system.

They will do anything and say anything to attempt to overturn the results. Look, I still do not trust Trump. He’s had some pretty good picks for his staff and Executive Offices (and a few “eh’s”), but, how will he actually govern? Regardless, he won per the Constitution.

Yet defenders of the electoral college cannot claim that following the state results is an explicit “constitutional” obligation. The Constitution makes no mention of popular election of electors, leaving the manner of their selection to the states. It’s worth asking why the national popular vote should be seen as meaningless while the state-by-state popular vote should be regarded as sacred.

Because part of the rationale for the EC is that it protects smaller states from the tyranny of larger states. It protects the rural areas from the larger urban areas. Because we are a Federal Republic, not a democracy, and States are meant to have more power, and the federal government is meant to have much, much less.

Of course, these aren’t the only pieces. Numerous papers and media outlets are pushing the same. These are just the two leading papers of the nation asking the EC to be faithless. We saw much of this same thing back in 2000, because they didn’t want Bush to win. But, not to this extent. Just deal with it, Democrats. Your horrible candidate lost. To Donald Trump. A guy with no campaigning experience. No government experience. Because your candidate was horrible. Blame Russia, blame Putin, blame this, blame that. You lost. We dealt with 8 years of Obama, you can deal with at least 4 years of Trump.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “NY Times, Washington Post, Continue To Push To Overturn Election Results Thru Electoral College”

  1. Dana says:

    Back in 2000, when the Florida recount was still under litigation, the Democrats were up in arms at the suggestion that the Florida state legislature could simply appoint the state’s electors, to end the shenanigans. The legislature was controlled by the GOP, and the Governor was Jeb Bush.

    Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote, and the Democrats were trying to use that to persuade some Republican electors to vote for Mr Gore rather than Governor George Bush; with 267 electoral votes won, Mr Gore needed to flip only three GOP electors, but none of them flipped. Mr Gore lost one electoral vote when one of his electors abstained.

    The electors are party loyalists; while there have been a few rogue electors in the past, there have never been anywhere close to the number required, 37, to deny Donald Trump an electoral college majority.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Americans horrified by the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency have implored THREATENED red-state electors to vote for Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican.

    So where’s the DOJ?


  3. safetyguy says:

    Every journalist, msm, radio personally, professor, and hollywierd whacko should be personal BILLED for any and all costs associated with the recounts and actions to overturn the election. Not one penny of taxpayer money should be used for this BS.

Pirate's Cove