Of the 50 states, 21 have no legal control over how their electors vote. There’s no federal law against it either, which means that electors can pretty much do whatever they want in those states. But in the other 29 states (plus the District of Columbia), the state government has legal control over how their electors vote, which means that for electors to switch their votes to Clinton, they’ll need a lot more than popular support. It’s worth noting, at this point, that historically speaking, there’s almost no chance of faithless electors actually swinging an election. But if any candidate is able to break 240 years of Electoral College conformism, it’s probably Donald Trump.
Still, voters that switch, especially in the 29 restricted states, aren’t going to get off easy. The state statutes that bind electors to their party’s choice vary, but the precedent in most previous cases has just been to charge faithless electors with a misdemeanor and slap them with a fine, usually $1,000. Clinton lost by 51 electoral votes, which means that at least 26 electors would have to swap”
According to PU After easily passing her initial fundraising goal to pay for recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the Green Party’s Jill Stein has upped the amount of money she says she will need, and changed some of the fine print on her fundraising page.
Here was the site’s initial fine print:
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) November 24, 2016
The Law Newz blog pointed out that the language on the fundraising page was changed on the website to read:
All money raised goes toward recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state.
We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.
If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.
Stein will shortly surpass $5 million in fundraising for the recount. She changed the goal of the campaign to $7 million. The Green Party now has enough money to file for recounts in all three swing states. Stein is correct. Recounts are very expensive, and if she wants to silence those who are wondering if the fundraiser is a scam, the deadline for filing for a recount in Wisconsin is today.
Those who are donating to this effort need to read the fine print and understand that the money they are donating might not go towards a recount. If the money is only for the purpose of a recount, Stein should promise to return any leftover funds to donors beyond what is needed. The talk of spending the extra funds on election integrity and voting system reform efforts is a nice-sounding way of saying, we’re going to keep the money and spend it as we see fit.
If Stein wants to inspire confidence and support for her efforts, she needs to drop the language about keeping the money and pledge that all funds will be spent on the recount, or returned to donors.
Should Stein and the Green Party use outrage of Trump’s victory for financial gain, they will never be forgiven by the left.
The Green Party can show that they can be trusted by filing for a recount in Wisconsin today.
Anything less will only serve to fuel concerns that people are getting suckered by a fundraising scam.