THE “FAITHLESS ELECTOR” INITIATIVE

I never thought I would ever see mainstream media venues actively trying to subvert the will of the people.

But that is exactly what is happening right now.  And both the New York Times and Washington Post are involved.

On Monday, The Times put up an op-ed written by a Republican elector in Texas named Christopher Suprin, who tells us that, because HE does not think Donald Trump should be President, THE PEOPLE in Texas who voted for Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton (each Texas elector represents about 235,000 votes), should lose their voice.

The op-ed does not explain why, if Mr. Suprin felt he could not vote for the Republican nominee, he remained an elector rather than resigning and giving that position to someone who could.

The fact that The Times would publish this piece, from someone intentionally about to subvert the will of the people, and not publish so much as one word of opposition to electors doing so on its editorial page (which has become little other than a “get-Trump” daily diatribe), makes it apparent that the paper is rooting for more people to follow Suprin’s lead.

And, today, we have the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker specifically advocating for 37 or more electors do to exactly what Suprin says he will do, so that the election will be overturned:  in other words, the results of a fair and square election would be changed by a few dozen anonymous electors no one ever heard of.

Here are a few key segments:

If you thought Donald Trump was the face of America’s anti-establishment movement, hold on to your chapeaus: A wild wind is rising.

Want to know what’s more anti-establishment than a president-elect who refuses to play by the rules? How about similarly spirited electors going AWOL and sending someone else to the Oval Office?

Could it happen? Might.

Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in their respective states to cast their final ballots. If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written.

Please, be brave.

That, as you can plainly see, is an overt call for electors to ignore the will of the people and do whatever they damn please, as if the vote had not taken place at all.

And it comes three days after the Post published Michael F. Cannon’s plea that Democrat and Republican electors join forces to vote for a different person.

Does what you just read bother you?  Anger you?

If so, take heart.  Two things are likely to come from the Times’ and the Post’s efforts – both of them good.

-One is that this will make additional people aware of the fact that these two supposedly neutral news venues are anything but (sadly, some are still unaware of this);

-Another is that it will almost certainly cause congress, and the individual states, to propose an amendment that will do away with the electoral college.  Not the electoral system – that isn’t going anywhere – but the electoral college.  

If that happens, you can say goodbye to the Christopher Suprins of the world, who think their judgment should supersede tens, even hundreds, of thousands of voters.

Good riddance to every one of them.