A Letter From A Two Time Member Of The US Electoral College: “…It Would Be The Biggest Political Crime In History…”

[Note, this is from an email correspondence, Dec. 3, 2016, between Celia Farber and Paul Hollrah, following an inquiry about the possibility of an electoral insurrection in the U.S.]

 

 

 

Celia:

I find it hard to believe that the Left could ever convince 38 people to become faithless electors… which is what it would take to reverse the outcome of the election and put Hillary Clinton in the White House.

Electors are not just people who walked in off the street and decided they wanted to be electors. One cannot become an elector without having given many years of faithful service to the political party of their choice. As you probably know, when I served the first of two terms in the Electoral College in 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had only 271 electoral votes to Al Gore and Joe Lieberman’s 266. And in spite of numerous death threats and bribery offers, every single one of the 271 electors did exactly what they had sworn to do. I just don’t think that it would ever be possible to corrupt 38 (12.4%) of all the Republican electors. If they did, it would be the biggest political crime in history and a full scale civil war would be sure to follow.

 

–Paul H.

 

*Paul R. Hollrah is a retired corporate government relations executive and a two time member of the U.S. Electoral College

In an upcoming commentary for The Truth Barrier, he will tell us more about what few of us can imagine, regarding the real life experiences of U.S. Electors.

 

 

 

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    This is exactly what Republicans did in 2008 . So whats the story?

  2. Richard Jannaccio says:

    Is it cowardice to honor one’s pledge? Your statement is ridiculous, John Powell.

    The electors are elected by the people for one reason and one reason only, that being that they appear on the ballot having pledged to support one candidate for president and one for vice president.

    A “faithless” elector is one who has broken his/her pledge to the people who elected him/her solely to perform that single task to vote for the candidate that they pledged to vote for. A “faithless” elector, by subverting the will of the people in his/her state (or district for ME and NE), is a disgrace, a betrayer to the voers who elected her/him, and therefore enemy of democracy.

    A majority of states — 29 — have laws prohibiting electors from breaking their pledge.

    The outcome of a presidential election has been altered by faithless electors zero times, including elections with closer electoral tallies than this one.

    It is one thing to propose changing the rules in the future, but quite another to propose that electors en mass betray their pledges.

    • Celia Farber says:

      Thank you Richard. Brilliantly clarifying. We all need to love facts more and our feelings less. (Me too, yes.)

  3. Caroline says:

    Huff another bag of glue Anonymous.

  4. David Crowe says:

    An institution of party hacks that dutifully goes through a dance scripted over 200 years ago. It seems to me that the founders of the US expected electors to exert independent judgement. In which case they can cast any vote that they want.

    • john powell says:

      David, that which, as you wrote, “seems” to you to be the way it was, is an exactly accurate portrayal/description of the way IT IS.

      The founders did expect independent judgment from the electors, and they certainly did intend that electors are free to “cast any vote they want.”

      Electors who do not cast their votes independently and for whomever their own judgment determines to be worthy, but instead vote as “faithful” devotees of this or that regimented group-think orthodoxy, are NOT fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to them by the founders, and are THE REAL criminals, corrupting the founders’ design with corrupted obedience to deified Party powers, under threat of excommunication.

      Such obedience is cowardice.

Speak Your Mind