The Democrats' Efforts to Overturn The 2016 Election--The Electoral Count

Earlier this week I posted excerpts from an article by Kurt Schlichter that posited that Biden (or the Left, more generally) would not let any Republican presidential candidate, let alone Donald Trump, take office as the next president of the United States. Schlichter set out numerous ways that the Democrats would attempt to subvert the election, the counting of ballots, and, if that was insufficient, try and prevent a Republic candidate from being seated as the next president. A comment to that story prompted me to dig deeper into what the Democrats and other Leftists did to try and invalidate the 2016 election.

    For today's post, I just want to focus on direct efforts to effect the count of the Electoral College. First up are accounts from Leftist media who, obviously, are going to try and paint what happened in the most positive light:

• "Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too" by By Derek T. Muller, New York Times (1/6/2021). An excerpt (bold added):

    As Republicans in Congress prepare to formally contest the outcome of the 2020 presidential election on Wednesday, many of them have cited precedent for their effort: similar complaints lodged by Democrats in other presidential elections. After Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016, for instance, Democrats in Congress used the formal counting of electoral votes as an opportunity to challenge election results.

* * *

    Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.

    In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”

    Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.

    In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.

    Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.

    The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.

    In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”

    There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”

    Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting.

• "Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election"--Wikipedia. From the article (footnotes omitted): 

In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from the ones to whom they were pledged. Three of these votes were invalidated under the faithless elector laws of their respective states, and the elector either subsequently voted for the pledged candidate or was replaced by someone who did. Although there had been a combined total of 155 instances of individual electors voting faithlessly prior to 2016 in over two centuries of previous US presidential elections, 2016 was the first election in over a hundred years in which multiple electors worked to alter the result of the election.

And:

The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the "Hamilton Electors" co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives. The electors advocated for voting their conscience to prevent the election of someone they viewed as unfit for the presidency as prescribed by Alexander Hamilton in No. 68 of The Federalist Papers. Despite their stated intentions to defeat Donald Trump, these electors cast their votes for persons other than the candidate to whom they were pledged, Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton. By the time they switched their votes away from Trump's opponent, it was numerically impossible to achieve their stated goal as all but 30 of the Trump-pledged electoral votes had already been cast (in different states in the same or later time zones), with 37 votes needed to switch to deny Trump an outright victory in the Electoral College. Electors were subjected to public pressure, including threats of death if they remained faithful to voting for Trump. ...

• "Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump" by Kyle Cheney, Politico (11/22/2016). 

    At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution. 

 

    The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

    Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they’re unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they’d likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

    But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

• "Democrats can stop Trump via the electoral college. But not how you think." By Michael F. Cannon, Washington Post (12/5/2016).

    Hillary Clinton's decision to join Green Party candidate Jill Stein's recount efforts in key states may have been welcome news to Democrats, but it is unlikely to change the outcome of the presidential election. Nor will complaining about the unfairness of the electoral college or begging Republican electors to vote for Clinton. Democrats' best chance to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency is instead to do the unthinkable: Throw their support behind another Republican, such as Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

    To become president, a candidate must get a bare majority of 270 votes when the electoral college meets Dec. 19.

    As Alexander Hamilton explained, the electoral college provides a backstop in the event voters select a dangerously unfit candidate. "The process of election," Hamilton wrote, "affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Electors would use their judgment to prevent the "tumult and disorder" that would result from "this mischief" of presidential candidates exploiting "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity." One might call it the cooler-heads college.

    Election Day produced 306 electors pledged to Trump and 232 pledged to Clinton. A petition at Change.org asks Republican electors to vote for Clinton. A group calling itself "Hamilton Electors" seeks to persuade at least 37 GOP electors to vote for a Republican other than Trump, leaving him with only 269 votes. If no candidate secures 270 votes, the House of Representatives selects the next president from the top three vote-getters in the electoral college.

    Either strategy is a fool’s errand. Whatever reservations Republican electors may have about Trump, empty entreaties from Democrats are unlikely to sway them. Even if 37 Republican electors voted for another Republican, the GOP-controlled House would likely select Trump anyway.

    The only way Democrats stand any chance of persuading Republican electors to abandon Trump is with a dramatic gesture of true bipartisanship. If all 232 Democratic electors pledge to reach across the aisle and vote for a Republican alternative to Trump, it would take just 38 GOP electors to make that person the next president.

    If Clinton announced she is releasing “her” electors and asked them to vote for a credible Republican alternative, she could plausibly deliver all 232 Democratic electors. She might even secure similar pledges from House Democrats in the event the election went to the House.

• "The last-ditch push for the Electoral College to stop Trump, explained" by Andrew Prokop, Vox (12/19/2016). The article begins by noting:

    Donald Trump won last month’s presidential election. But many liberals and progressives are still clinging to one faint, almost-certainly-doomed hope that he can be blocked from the presidency — through the Electoral College.

    That’s because the November 8 vote was technically not to make Trump president, but only to determine who 538 electors in various states across the country will be. It is those electors who will cast the votes that legally elect the president on Monday, December 19.

And although Prokop does not think efforts to get electors to change their votes will amount to anything, before going on to discuss the Hamilton Electors plan--discussed above--to try and convince Trump electors to change their vote to Mitt Romney. "The idea has caught fire in liberal social media circles, and some celebrities have even gotten involved," he adds. He continues (underline added):

    The Hamilton Electors and their sympathizers are arguing that Trump’s installment as president would mean an unprecedented threat to American democracy. They say he’s temperamentally unfit to be president, and suggest he could end up a potential tyrant, demagogue, or threat to world peace. They also express fears about Russian influence on Trump and his team, and are concerned that his business holdings pose the possibility of unprecedented corruption. Therefore, they argue, dramatic methods are necessary to block Trump from taking power.

    They also make the case that even though elector intervention like this would be essentially unprecedented, it is in fact in line with what the Founding Fathers originally envisioned as the Electoral College’s role. “The founders envisioned electors as people who could prevent an irresponsible demagogue from taking office,” writes the Atlantic’s Peter Beinart.

    But many critics of this line of thinking— on both the left and right — aren’t convinced. Mainly, they argue that an Electoral College revolt would be a tremendously dangerous violation of the democratic norms that have governed US presidential elections for centuries.

    All sides agreed in advance that the winner of the presidential election would be whoever gets 270 electoral votes. So this seems to many like a transparent attempt for the losing side to change the universally understood rules of the game after they have lost (which, again, is terrible for democracy). While it’s true that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, everyone understood in advance that the popular vote was meaningless, and structured their campaign strategies with that understanding.

    If we’re being real, this is essentially an attempt to steal an election that Trump fairly won — something that liberals would obviously be infuriated about if it were done to Clinton.

• "Democrats’ Last Chance to Block Trump’s Presidency Is Over (Until the Next Chance)" by Jim Newell, Slate. He writes (bold added):

    Since Election Day, Democrats have been recreating this series of never-ending last stands to block Trump from the presidency. But now, without further ado, I present to you the Democrats’ final, last, last, final, last chance to block the presidency of Donald Trump, conducted Friday afternoon in the House of Representatives in the tallying of electoral votes.

* * *

    Democrats didn’t have much of a mechanism to block Trump, only to make his ceremony marginally embarrassing for a brief period of time. The relevant code allows members to object to the veracity of an individual state’s electoral vote tally if they can present an objection, in writing, and signed by one member of Congress and one senator. If done successfully, then the Senate and the House withdraw and make a decision about the objection. (In other words, they reject it.)

    Senate President Joe Biden oversaw the proceedings. On the Democratic side of the aisle, a half-dozen or so members, including Reps. Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Raúl Grijalva and freshman Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jamie Raskin, switched seats to take turns raising objections. The objections varied from state to state. In North Carolina the objections hinged on the state’s effective disenfranchisement of black voters. But most objections referenced Russia’s interference in the election.

    Biden was having little of it, and banged the gavel loudly, because none of the members were able to find a senatorial co-signator, thus voiding their objections. The much more populated Republican side of the aisle booed or called out “order!” following each denied objection. When Rep. Jayapal gave her objection, Biden finally said, “It is over.” Republicans gave him a standing ovation.

    The Democrats frequently spoke over Biden’s gavel and Republican boos to get their two cents in, before admitting that they did not have the signature of a senator. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was sitting across the aisle from where the Democrats were protesting, and urged them to keep going; she applauded after one member raised the issue of Russian interference. Members’ mics were cut off as soon as their objections were denied.

    Near the end, Rep. Waters straight-up asked, “Is there one United States senator who will join me? Just one?” There was not. Pelosi, at one point, moved over to where Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin was sitting to discuss something. If it was an effort to get Durbin, or some other senator, to co-sign an objection, it failed.

    Once the tally was finalized, a protester stood up in the gallery to object to the decision and was ushered out by security. Then two more did, and then it was over.

    Biden, done performing his official duties, went up to the protesting members and chatted for a while, all smiles.

    The Electoral College vote is now officially tallied and certified. Donald Trump will be president. This was the last chance to block Trump. Expect new efforts soon.

    And these were just the first results on the top of the first page of my Google search results. It took more digging to find an account from any non-party news source, but I came across this article this Daily Signal article by Fred Lucas, "How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup" (12/17/2020), which relates (bold added):

    Strangely enough, many of the same people who complained Trump would be president despite losing the national popular vote were suddenly willing to give the presidency to someone who wasn’t on the ballot and had zero votes for president.

    Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., framed altering the Electoral College vote as a way to prevent a soft Russian takeover of the United States. 

    “This man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”

    Christine Pelosi, a California elector and daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, took up the mantle for a potential Electoral College coup.

    The younger Pelosi led a letter signed by 53 other electors—including one rogue Republican from Texas—addressed to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, requesting the intelligence community provide a briefing on Russian interference for the full Electoral College before it convened in 50 state capitols.

    “We do not understand our sole function [to be] to convene in mid-December, several weeks after Election Day, and summarily cast our votes,” said the letter. “To the contrary, the Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government—ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”

    As the chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus, Christine Pelosi had been “thoroughly convinced that this would be my opportunity to cast a vote for the first woman president of the United States.”

    To that end, she petitioned to be an elector. Despite the letter extolling the deliberative role of the Electoral College, she said in an interview with the left-wing Democracy Now! broadcast that she would prefer to scrap it.

    “I’m a member of the Electoral College who would like to see the end of the Electoral College,” she said. She added, “But as long as you charge me to do a job as an elector, I’m going to do it with agency and with attention. And right now, I’d like to pay attention to the evidence.”

    Then, there was a group calling themselves the Hamilton Electors, named for Alexander Hamilton, who said that the Electoral College existed to ensure “the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    Bret Chiafalo, an elector from Washington state, and Michael Baca, an elector from Colorado, started the effort. “We’re trying to be that ‘break in case of emergency’ fire hose that’s gotten dusty over the last 200 years,” Chiafalo told The Atlantic. 

    They first sought the near-unattainable goal of uniting 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican: John Kasich or maybe Mitt Romney. A slightly more realistic alternative was to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from Trump, bringing his total below the needed 270 electoral votes. That would send the election to the House of Representatives.

    In addition, Clinton electors in California, Colorado, and Washington filed lawsuits to overturn state restrictions on electors from voting however they wish. This was supposed to set a legal precedent to allow Trump electors to break. 

    Hollywood even got in on the act. In an ad sponsored by United For America, Martin Sheen, star of NBC’s “West Wing,” was joined by other Hollywood stars, including Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, and Bob Odenkirk, for a political ad. 

    The audience was the Republican electors. Each actor stated, “I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.” They then requested that Republicans in the Electoral College be an “American hero” by keeping Trump out of the White House through their “service and patriotism to the American people.

    On Dec. 19, a total of seven electors bolted from the candidate who had won their state. ...

Michael Barone, writing in the New York Post on December 4, 2020, also mentions the following about the Democrats' reaction to Trump's victory in 2016:

In violation of longstanding norms, Democrats refused to accept the result as legitimate. “I will not accede to this. I will resist,” tweeted liberal think tank head Neera Tanden (President-elect Joe Biden’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget) five days after the election. Democrats took to calling themselves “the Resistance,” suggesting the Trump administration was morally equivalent to the pro-Hitler Vichy regime in France.

     So what we see were coordinated campaigns to usurp the electoral college count in 2016 by attempting to get electors to change their votes from Trump to someone else--even if it meant the Democrats accepting a RINO--Mitt Romney--becoming president. Others wanted to use the process to undermine the Electoral College system. More interestingly, as I've tried to highlight in the articles above, the "Russian interference" or "Russian influence" was used to justify this attempt by the Democrats to disenfranchise Republican voters. And, as is well established, the "Russian interference" was fake: it was the product of a conspiracy between the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the intelligence community, including the FBI and CIA, although that is a subject for another article. 

    But this was not all. As I will explore in future articles, the Leftists had, well before the 2016 election, set in motion to plans to contest a Trump victory, which they would pursue after his largely unexpected victory at the polls.