While most of the rest of the country is wracked by heavy winter storms and frigid conditions, I am placidly sitting here outside my favorite Gainesville Starbucks on an unseasonably warm (80 degrees) and clear Saturday afternoon. I never quite know how crowded this coffee shop will be when I arrive...today there is plenty of available seating, as you can see from the picture. I would have preferred a cooler day, but the air is relatively dry and there is a pleasant light breeze as well. A good environment for me to sit here and ruminate on something about the recent presidential election...
I've lately been hearing some stories about a campaign to get Donald Trump's committed electors to switch their votes from him to a different person before they convene in their respective states to cast their ballots in a couple of days. Old has-been celebrities like Martin Sheen and Loretta Swit have made calls for electors to vote for anyone but Trump, with the aim in mind to somehow prevent him from garnering the necessary 270 votes to win the presidency. But as my conservative radio pal Mark Levin...whom I have come to respect over the past couple of years in spite of his often inflammatory rhetoric...has repeatedly pointed out, all this would only send the vote to the House of Representatives. Then each state's delegation would cast a single vote for president and whoever received a majority of the states would win the election. But if this does happen, the representatives, as the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution most explicitly makes clear, have as choices only the top three finishers (in terms of electoral college votes) in the general election. And we only have two in the 2016 election who received any electoral votes: Trump and Hillary Clinton. Maybe a handful of votes by rogue electors for another Republican like Romney or Ryan would provide that third "finisher", but don't count on the representatives to turn their backs on the general election results. So Trump would still be elected, since his party controls most of the U.S. House's state delegations. Therefore, this campaign to overturn the election results is pointless and reveals an embarrassing ignorance of the Constitution. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me...
Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to see Hillary Clinton win the election...but she lost. And winning the overall popular vote has NEVER constituted "winning" the election...the electoral college system is also solidly in our Constitution as established law, and anyone who isn't completely ignorant already knew that going into the campaign. As Trump said in one of his unusually rational moments, had the election been a matter of winning the total popular vote, he would have campaigned differently to fit the criteria of that scenario. Donald Trump will be our next president, and as I have written before, I will support him in the collective interests of my country as much of our success will dovetail with his own success in office...but on specific issues with which I differ from our next president, I reserve the right to respectfully stand in opposition to his decisions and express those opinions. In this regard, although I disagree with him on a number of issues, I am in agreement on this one with Mark Levin, who has never remotely been a "cheerleader" for our incoming president and is often very blunt with his criticism...
