While I support Jill Stein's recount in as much as it will shine a spotlight on our busted electoral system and potentially the effects of voter suppression, the idea that it will overturn the election results, or that electors can be convinced to vote for Clinton, or that the Hamilton electors can convince a majority of electors to back a non-Trump republican is a nonstarter.

On one hand the electors you'd have to convince are hard-core Republican party members. On the other hand, the notion that electors would overturn the will of the electorate, no matter how much we disagree with it, would plunge the country into disarray.

If you're looking for something to support, look beyond the 2016 election.

TEN have gone to Clinton's side already. All she needs is 41 (42?) more.

To get electors to support a 2.1 million popular vote win sounds like the most democratic action we can take right now. To affect the next four years.

So hell yes.

I thought one elector from TX resigned and was replaced. The electors supporting the effort are from states that went blue anyway.

Colorado and Washington have HRC electors assigned.

If anything, this is a pro Bernie swipe at Clinton.

The Hamilton "faithless" electors are already pledged to Hillary! Their plan is to NOT vote for Hillary - abandon her - and instead vote for some moderate Republican.

In doing so, they hope that many Republican electors will desert Trump and instead vote for that Republican also (which they won't).

The net result of all this nonsense is that the Hamilton electors will end up costing Hillary electoral votes.

She doesn't have 270. So what difference does it actually make?

Some people think that the "faithless" Hamilton electors are out to help Hillary. It's very understandable that they think that way. After all, the Hamilton electors are all (so far) Democrats.

But the Hamilton electors are actually abandoning Hillary in an attempt to take Trump down. Hillary would lose electoral votes in this process. But as you noted, that would not affect her overall status. She would just be even more below 270.

sense.

Even if that means that enough numbers could get Hillary a vote of 270, the House still wouldn't lose the presidency over it.

There is no "deserting" a candidate when your state allows its electors to be in the 'faithless' zone. And fifteen states are in that zone.

So let's not pretend we know how each and every elector is committed to in the red states, because we don't.

Unless I'm missing something. Cuz y'all are sure jumpin' all over me about this.

I'm just tryin' to see a path to win, you know.

None of the Hamilton electors is from a red state. They're all trying to convince enough Trump electors to switch to a different republican on the theory that the House would boot trump for a more acceptable republican.

In no event does this help Clinton.

and thus CAN help Clinton?

The majority of the states that don't legally bind their electors are red. You appear to be calling those "faithless" despite the fact that none of the actual red electors have indicated that they will do anything other than vote for the candidate that their state selected.

So far, the only electors who have indicated an intend to disregard their state's selected candidate... are Democrats.

Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia are faithless elector zones.

That's a lot of electors to care about the total popular vote, no matter what states they're from and no matter what the popular vote of each of their states is.

Remember, Hillary needs 42 electors from those states to not represent their states' popular vote counts.

They could well be compelled.

I don't understand how this possibility isn't even considered around here. [u

They're happy that he won and unpersuaded that they should change the rules of the election (to a popular-vote standard) after they won.

Might they not be less likely to vote tRump after tRump's announcement this past Wednes that he will 'phase out' Medicare? He did not say he was presenting a program to Congress, he said flatly that he will phase out Medicare very soon. His pick as HHS Secretary is one of the major authors of this school of thought. With control of ALL branches of Government, there is nothing to stop the Republicans from accomplishing this long sought after goal. Seems like there might be a lot of folks dependent upon Medicare in these deep Red States. And will the Republicans stop with tossing Obamacare and Medicare? Why not go after Social Security as well. You know they want to. . .

You're asking whether or not Republicans might be less likely to vote for a Republican after he promises to do something that Republicans like?

Electors aren't random citizens who might decide to change their minds due to some policy pronouncement. They're picked for long-term party loyalty.

Which 10? Source?

Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia are faithless elector zones.

Remember, Hillary needs 42 electors from those states to not represent their states' popular vote counts.

They could well be compelled by the 2.1 million popular vote count and the poverty of leadership that Trump presents.

This needs another state added:



When the counting is done, Clinton may lead by the sum of all Trump voters in 12 states.

The House of Representatives has to vote to accept the results of the Electoral College. Even if we get enough Hamilton Electors to out Hillary over 270, the House will declare it invalid due to tampering and reject it. We still get Trump.

Could they compromise on somebody like Kasich?

Kasich as president would still sign into law legislation getting rid of the ACA, Medicare, Social Security; a Kasich presidency would still make judicial appointments hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

There needs to be a realization that the problem isn’t ‘Trump’ – the problem is the reactionary right and its wrongheaded agenda of fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate, regardless the Republican occupant of the WH.