On the Ethics of Electors

The author makes valid arguments, until he gets to the part that the elector should vote for Hillary, if they decide in good conscience not to vote for Trump. I have run across this same comment before in his articles, and it is this point that I take issue with. He agrees that Trump made a valid point with regards to the SuperPACs, when delving into trumps financial ties, so who exactly were those SuperPACs tied to, Hillary. But it is not only the incongruity between mentioning Trumps faults while ignoring Hillary’s that bothers me, it is the whole veiled attempt to rig the election for his candidate, by saying the electors must vote for Hillary. He is ignoring the fact, that most who voted for Trump, including women and minorities where in intent and essence voting against Hillary. If you say the electors have no choice but to vote for the opponent (and in the current two party system, you are by his argument), then you are again falling into the mindset of the tyrannical majority. How anyone can call this moral is beyond me, especially someone who has the background the author has. I am sorry but after following his posts for the last month, it is clear the only solution he will accept is for his candidate to be placed (Not Elected) by the tyrannical majority. This shows him to be nothing short of a political tool, and takes away from any valid points he may have.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.