Before everyone basks in the good news of "President Elect Bush".....consider the following.

Rumor has it that three of the electors of the electoral college which meets on December 18th "are considering" switching their support to Al Gore.

It only will take 1 (one)......to change his/her mind.

I will go on record as saying.....if that be the case.....I would then honor Al Gore as president. (I still vehemently disagree with him and will fight him every step of the way.) However, I would consider him the duly elect president with all the rights and privileges thereof.

I believe in the electoral college. I believe it was one of the wisest things our founding fathers did (next to the Second Amendment). Therefore, since I believe in it.....I will support the results of.

Truly at this point we can pray.....that God's will be done.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Answers

A sham?? No!!!

Imperfect?? Yes!!!

But certainly preferable to a popular vote contest.

Intesting twist of fate.....Al Gore ran his whole campaign taking great strains to point out that Bush may very well win the popular vote.....but it was the Electoral vote that counted.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Robin...

It is my understanding that most states have it in law that electors CANNOT switch their votes.

However, it's that few that do allow the electors to switch that is a concern.

Your is an interesting proposal, however, that in my view maintains the wisdom of the electoral college....without the possibility of "swaying" an elector away from what the people entrusted them to do. In other words......my initial reaction is favorable.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Thanks for the info Mark.

BTW....it's more than just rumor. It was the topic of at least two news talk shows tonight.

Hmmmmmm......

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Robin....

It is my understanding.....that the "Electors" are known and in fact there is a web page listing their names, addresses.....and as Brother Lee points out.....even their e-mail.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Danny,

If the electors switch their votes and go against what they were sworn to do (vote for the person that got the most popular votes in that state), doesn't that make a sham of the Electoral College idea?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

If the electors don't vote the way of the people they are sworn to represent... then it becomes a popular vote (just with a lot fewer voters). Why not just have so many 'elector points'... instead of electors?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Danny,

Actually, only 26 of the 50 states have laws that compell the Electors to vote per their state's vote returns.

What is even stranger than the reversal of the expected returns of popular vs. electoral vote is the fact that in his popular majority, Gore only won about 5 or 6 CITIES - forget about winning states. If electors were appointed according to County or District returns, it would have been over long ago - with Bush winning about 85 % of the Electors.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Brother Danny:

Just thought I would make a comment regarding this matter that shows that there is an organized effort afoot to actually convince some of these electors to change their vote. Here in Georgia one of the electors has one of the most popular e-mail addresses in the nation. His in-box has been flooded with e-mails asking him to change his vote. I know of this because it has been reported by the liberal media in this area. But this man has made it abundantly clear to all who sent him these e-mails that they are wasting their breath because he is a loyal Bush supporter. Any one seeking to accomplish this while at the same time arguing that they genuinely care that ever person's vote counts must realize that in the south people are very capable of seeing their pathetic self contradiction. THere is no doubt that the State of Georgia is the wrong place to look for some elector who might even remotely consider changing his vote. In order to fo that he would have to move out of the state for the outrage would be impossible to quell.

Let us remeber that it was not the supreme court that decided this election. Let us know that God is the one, in answer to our prayers, that has given true "legitamacy" to this election for all governments are ordained of God. Whoever is in power is there by God's ordination, "For there is no power but of God...". (Romans 13:1). I am confident that God will take good care of these concerns. There is nothing the godless left wing murders of innocent children in their mother's wombs can do to stop God when he choses to act. "The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. Like a water course he directeth it wheresoever He wills."

Prayer and not political action should be our constant solution to these matters.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

I killed a rattlesnake once--or thought I did. I beat him on the head and stuck him in a gas can until he was limp. 3 hours later I picked up the lifeless carcass and thrust him into the faces of neighborhood kids for thrills. I was quite startled when the snake shook himself from my hand, angily awakening from his stupor.

"Dad," my son informed me, "Don't you know rattlesnakes can hold their breath for hours?"

The very day when the US Supreme Court made their 7-2 decision, I was hopefully happy but still woefully suspicious. "What about the electors?" I thought.

Even after Gore's concession speech, I thought, "this is too easy..." I could just imagine behind-the-scenes blackmail or bribery going on between Gore operatives and electors. If this were so, it would be natural then for Gore to portray himself as the good sport, positioning himself for a later "January surprise"

I have been withholding my celebration until January 5 when the electoral votes are counted. I then decided I would post in this Forum, revealing my fears. I even picked a title: I would title my post "It ain't over yet"... But I didn't... Imagine my surprise when I saw this post by Danny...

Now that is scary. :)

Anyway, some questions, if anybody knows the answers:

Are the electoral votes private? That is, if a Republican defects, will we know who it is?

Can we get a recount?

Should we trust a dead snake?

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Duane,

Some info I found....

--"In an 1826 Senate committee report, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri said that the founding fathers had intended electors to be men of 'superior discernment, virtue and information,' who would select the president 'according to their own will' and without reference to the immediate wishes of the people. 'That this invention has failed of its objective in every election,' Benton said, 'is a fact of such universal notoriety, that no one can dispute it. That it ought to have failed,' he concluded, 'is equally uncontestable; for such independence in the electors was wholly incompatible with the safety of the people. [It] was, in fact, a chimerical and impractical idea in any community'" (The Electoral College Primer 2000, pgs. 109-110).

--Senator Benton went on to warn that an elector "may give or sell his vote to the adverse candidate, in violation of all the pledges that have been taken of him. The crime is easily committed, for he votes by ballot; detection is difficult, because he does not sign it; prevention is impossible, for he cannot be coerced; the injury irreparable, for the vote cannot be vacated; legal punishment is unknown and would be inadequate" (The Electoral College Primer 2000, pg. 111).

--In 1898, former President Benjamin Harrison warned that "an elector who failed to vote for the nominee of his party would be the object of execration, and in times of high excitement might be the subject of a lynching" (The Electoral College Primer 2000, pg. 111).

--"Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts said in 1949 that electors 'are mere rubber stamps--and inaccurate rubber stamps at that. The people know the candidates for president and vice president; rarely do they know the identity of the electors for whom they actually vote. Such 'go-betweens' are like the appendix in the human body. While it does no good and ordinarily causes no trouble, it continually exposes the body to the danger of political peritonitis'" (The Electoral College Primer 2000, pg. 110).

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Yes, now they are, I think.... those writings were from a while back.... before email. I put them on in response to Duane's question about whether or not we would know who 'defects'. I'm not sure if it is the same today or not..... "The crime is easily committed, for he votes by ballot; detection is difficult, because he does not sign it;"

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Just a thought ....

Al Gore did say he would do anything to get elected ...

Even bribing (a.k.a. lobbying) electors?

I think it would be pretty low of him to concede the election and tell the country to pull behind Bush, and then pull the political rug out from under him at the last minute. But he did say he would do anything ...

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Guess we don't have to worry about this one now. I did hear (but don't know the details) that one Gore elector did NOT vote for Gore ... upset about something in D.C. I believe.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000