NOT DEAD YET - ELECTORS MAY DEFECT, AND WITH GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION

NOT DEAD YET - ELECTORS MAY DEFECT, AND WITH GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION
By Thom Palmer
November 10, 2016

WHY WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE RESULTS

Thomas Jefferson: "Use what we gave you"

I never thought I would feel that an election HERE could be invalid, and should be, and must be rejected. There was a coordinated effort by the Trump campaign in concert with Putin operatives and Wikileaks to keep the email issue alive, adding questions of honesty, which media was happy to profit from. Then there was the other part, which is clearly a coordinated effort between Paul Ryan and/or Jason Chaffetz, working through Giuliani, to bring back the FBI investigation which James Comey was happy to deliver, adding questions of pending prosecution with Hillary. Two separate illegal scandals, one involving espionage, the other involving election tampering by the FBI and GOP. Both involving the Trump campaign. This election was a farce, and a coup. I have fought like hell debunking the myths surrounding Hillary Clinton, her emails and the mountain of manufactured "scandals", all which have been disproven long ago. The political character assassination of who the Republicans considered to be "the illegitimate President", Barack Obama (you know...the dark one), and the three decades long character assassination of Hillary Clinton.

The CURRENT President-Elect is under indictment on racketeering charges, and now under FBI investigation for working with a foreign government in order to influence our election.  This was not a legitimate election. It's not supposed to happen in the United States, but it did. The Founding Fathers planned for this, and believe it or not, the firewall is THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE itself.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE EXPLAINED
The Electoral College is a group of 538 "Electors". They are bound, not by the Constitution but by policy to vote the way their individual states voted, all of their electoral votes to one candidate, based on the winner of the popular vote in their state. There is no law that actually requires them to do so. Some states may fine an elector that votes their conscience if they do not wish to cast their vote for the winner of their state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska cast their electoral votes based on how each Congressional district voted. On November 8th for example, Maine's system dictates that they will cast 3 votes for Clinton and 1 vote for Trump, in order to honor the popular vote within each district.

FAITHLESS ELECTORS
In the history of the nation, 150 electors have cast their votes for a different candidate than the one that won their state. Most recently in 1968 and 2004. They are known as "Faithless Electors'. These are members of the Electoral College who refuse to put their electoral vote toward the candidate who won in their state. This is rare, and in some states results in fines as a penalty should the elector vote for someone other than the candidate they are bound by. In 2004, one elector cast their vote for John Edwards in a protest vote, even though he was bound to vote for Kerry. Bush had already won with a relative landslide, and there were no repercussions against the elector. There has never been a penalty imposed on an elector who defected. If an elector, for moral reason cannot cast their vote for the winner of the electoral votes in the election, there is no federal law preventing them from voting as their conscience demands.

HOW MANY WOULD NEED TO SWITCH
42 out of Trumps 279 electors would need to defect in order to put Clinton in the White House or 10 to throw the election into the hands of the House of Representatives, which in this case would still end up giving the election to a Republican...but more than likely NOT Trump.

PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER
The purpose of the Electoral College was to make sure that, if the average American lacks enough information about the candidates to make an intelligent decision, the Electoral College would always have the ability to over-ride the vote.

In this case, we're not talking about "lack of information". We're talking about the real possibility of election tampering by the Trump campaign in conjunction with the GOP and FBI, and also election changing espionage and falsifications between the Trump campaign, Russian operatives and Wikileaks. Currently, the President-Elect is going through legal battles on racketeering charges, and also under FBI investigation on espionage, working with foreign operatives to put him in power.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS DEMAND WE TRY
So, it is demanded by the Founding Fathers that we use the Electoral College, if at all possible, to avoid fascism, or to keep dictators and foreign government from seizing power over the United States of America. Democracy was nuked in this election cycle, and there is still one way to restore it.

STAY TUNED. This is a fluid article, where more information will be added, updates will be given, and progress if any will be announced. I realize this sounds like a revolution attempt. It is not. It is simply an attempt to right a wrong, and use the Constitution of the United States as the Founding Fathers intended.

HOMEWORK FOR YOU TO DO
Time is short. Obtain contact information on the Electors in your state. Especially, but not limited to states with Democratic legislatures that ended up voting for Trump. These states would have the most Electors who may be willing to defect, and refuse to cast their votes for Trump on December 19th, when the Electoral College convenes to vote for the next President of the United States, leader of the free world, and holder of the nuclear codes. I will publish them here once I have all the info. 

LOOK FOR PETITIONS, and sign them. 
Look, I realize this is unprecedented, but with democracy on the line.....it's worth the effort.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/the-electoral-college-is-hated-by-many-so-why-does-it-endure.html?_r=0

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/10/who-are-the-electors-in-the-electoral-college/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-college-texas-chris-suprun-227422

http://www.politico.com/magazine/thepeoplewhopickthepresident/2016

http://state.1keydata.com/state-electoral-votes.php

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

QUOTES

"The founding fathers sought to ensure that residents in states with smaller populations were not ignored. And in an era that pre-dated mass media and even political parties, they were concerned that average Americans would lack enough information about the candidates to make intelligent choices. So informed “electors” would stand in for them."

"Some states have discussed a possibility that would not necessarily require amending the Constitution: jettisoning the winner-takes-all system, in which a single candidate is awarded all of a state’s electoral votes — regardless of the popular vote — and instead apportioning them to reflect the breakdown of each state’s popular vote. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already do this. But even that approach could face a constitutional challenge from opponents, said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School."

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties."

"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged."

"Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party."