After Hillary Clinton lost the election with more popular votes than any losing presidential candidate has ever received, millions of Americans unprepared to accept Donald Trump as their next president have called upon the Electoral College voters to go against their districts and vote Clinton as president.
Clinton leads Trump nationally by more than two million votes and counting, as the vote tally continues primarily counting provisional and absentee ballots, notes USA Today. She has roughly 64.2 million votes to Trump’s 62.2 million, with Michigan – which Trump leads – still too close to call. However, even if she does take Michigan, she would only have 248 electoral votes to Trump’s 290, which is far over the 270-vote margin needed to win. Trump has a large enough margin of victory in most of the states that determined the election, like Pennsylvania and Florida, so a recount will not automatically trigger, although there are some, led by Heba Abedin, the sibling of a top Clinton aide, who are calling on the Justice Department to audit the votes in the Rust Belt, notes the Daily Caller.
Others say that Clinton’s large popular vote win should put her in the White House, with more than 4.6 million people signing the online petition on Change.org urging the Electoral College to select Clinton as the next president by acting as so-called “faithless electors.”
“Mr. Trump is unfit to serve,” says that petition, started by Daniel Brezenoff of North Carolina. “His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.”
Brezenoff went on to add that electors in 26 states are eligible to vote as they please, which, in most cases, would result in a fine, but he pointed out that there are “no legal means to stop them in most states.”
“But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate,” the petition states. “So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?”
Is this something that could actually happen? Technically yes, though having more than a handful of faithless electors at once would be unprecedented, notes the Los Angeles Times.
“From time to time, there are faithless electors,” Texas A&M political science professor and electoral college expert George C. Edwards III told the Times. “They’re few and far between.”
Sources: USA Today, Daily Caller, Change.org, Los Angeles Times / Photo Credit: Michael Vadon/Flickr