On the Ethics of Electors
Lessig
7416

Trump’s conflicts of interest are not yet enough to influence an elector’s decision. I might have to drive to work on Monday. Drunk on Friday while I am not driving is not illegal or unethical concerning Monday. It is also not an indication that come Monday I will be unable to drive. “Attempted conflicts of interest” is not a charge.

Come Monday, if I am sober, then Friday’s and Saturday and Sunday’s BAC don’t mean anything. This isn’t The Minority Report.

He would need to actually be President and have conflicts of interest for their to be any intersection with a law against the President having conflicts of interest. Thus you can see where the problem lies. If he isn’t elected by the Electors, then there is no conflict of interest to cause them to not elect him. They’d have to elect him to have a reason to not elect him on this basis. Ridiculous. Your best bet is actually election.

Should he refuse to divest 100%, it is simple matter for impeachment, not for the Electors. Boom. You win. You are of course too terrified to win. But that’s how you could do it. That would be a massive test of the strength of our instutions. How strong do you think they are?

Whether or not one can prove that their involvement is actually responsible for the 80,000 votes in the 3 states that turned the winner of the popular vote into the loser of the election, an elector could well reason that we should have zero tolerance for any such interference.

Herein lies another tricky question you are begging. If you can’t prove the Russian’s interference. Then there is no proven interference. At that point, you can’t discuss zero tolerance of Russian interference. You don’t have any interference that happened. You have rumors. You have to prove it first, before you can act on it. That includes not tolerating it.

You seem willing at this point to blindly trust the CIA because what these “unnamed internal sources” have said is friendly to your position. That’s not enough to justify faithlessness. It’s not evidence by any standard of proof. It is rumor until the proof is out. We have no idea what the Russians did, or why they did it, or what their intent was, and if it had an effect or not. We cannot base elector faithlessness on such a flimsy premise.

The EC balances the extra power afforded voters in small states with the mass of voters in larger states. The larger states still have the advantage of more electors and representatives in Congress. You know this. You know why the disparity exists. Your rhetoric attempts to disguise this. That is why this is so annoying. You are a law professor, acting like a jilted lover instead of an academic. The EC is supposed to deny equal weight to each citizen’s vote. It is known. It is the system we have. That is a far stronger argument against one person one vote than for it. The mirror between Electoral Allocation and Senate and House allocation shows us Framer’s intent. The Framers did not want the election to be decided by popular vote nationally. It’s left to the states. That’s what is in the constitution.

Hillary conceded despite knowing that California was going to come in big. Why would she do that? Because the popular vote is not how we run our presidential elections. The Framers were against that kind of popular sovereignty. We use their system. Maybe we shouldn’t. That’s not at issue for 2016. Hill lost. She is not being denied her victory. What you are denying her is her dignity. Well done.