Petition to The 538 Members of the U.S. Electoral College
Electoral College Members: Please Save Us From Donald Trump!
Last night, to the dismay of half the country and much of the world, Donald Trump came out ahead in the race for U.S. president by a razor-thin margin, and as usual, most of the media prematurely rushed to declare a winner. Of course the possibility of another President Clinton was equally dismaying to many, and all the candidates other than the nominees of the 2-party cartel were once again shut out of the presidential debates, arguably once again making the election results illegitimate regardless of who ends up in the White House. Hillary Clinton actually received more votes than Trump did, even though he came out ahead in the Electoral College tally. But the Electoral College has not actually voted yet, and that vote is what ultimately elects the president. What many people don't realize is that they could still change who becomes the next president! An ABC News story reports:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/electoral-college-rogue-electors-43323385As explained in the above article, 21 states do not require their Electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, and indeed one Clinton Elector from Washington has already announced he will not vote for her! With the votes of 270 Electors needed to make him president, Trump has been reported as having between 279 and 290 pledged, and Clinton between 218 and 228, with 31 still up for grabs as Michigan, New Hampshire, and Arizona were still too close to call.This means that as few as 10 Electors refusing to vote for Donald Trump could deny him the 270 total and throw the election to the House of Representatives! With a Republican majority in the House, members would not vote to elect Clinton, but a coalition of Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans might choose a less odious Republican, or even the 3rd-place vote-getter, Libertarian candidate (and former Republican governor of New Mexico) Gary Johnson.Republican Electors, your party has saved us from Hillary Clinton; please have the courage now to stand up and save us from Donald Trump! Do you really want this unstable, thin-skinned man with his finger on the nuclear button!? In the name of humanity, we the undersigned ask you, Republican Electors, please vote your consciences. Please do not vote to make Donald Trump president of the United States!
Petition to Dianne Feinstein, Richard Burr, Loretta Lynch, Ron DeSantis, Barack Obama, James Comey
Tell POTUS, DOJ, FBI & CONG to release info on Trump's Russian ties before electors vote!
In addition to James Comey, I will also be sending this letter to The White House, the Department of Justice, The United States House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. If you can think of anyone else to send it to please mention in comments. Please sign the letter! In light of the Oct. 7th announcement by: The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence; on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community; concerning the Russian Government having compromised the e-mails of American citizens, US institutions and US political organizations; in an effort to effect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. It would be in the best interest of the American public, to release any and all information involving any and all investigation(s) of President-Elect Donald Trump and the Trump campaign's ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government, before the electoral college votes in December. In addition to reports of Trump's top campaign aids having ties to the Russian government, there have been recent reports of the campaign being in constant contact with members of the Russian government throughout the 2016 election process. This information creates a serious cause for concern and may be a danger to our national secrets, a danger to the safety and security of the american people, and in the case any negotiations took place, is a blatant violation of The Logan Act. Thank you for your time. The American People PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE! On November 29th Democratic senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence sent the following letter to the President of the United States: Dear Mr. President, We believe there is additional information concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election that should be declassified and released to the public. We are conveying specifics through classified channels. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Ron Wyden , Jack Reed, Mark R. Warner, Barbara Mikulski, Martin Heinrich, Angus King and Mazie K. Hirono View letter here.
Petition to U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Justice, Jason Chaffetz, James Comey, Loretta Lynch
Prosecute Trump for illegal offenses before the Dec. 19 Electoral College Vote.
We respectfully call upon the appropriate Federal Authorities to thoroughly investigate the many possible illegal offenses of Donald Trump, the Trump Corporations, and the Trump Foundation before the members of the Electoral College meet to cast their final vote on Dec. 19. The Electoral College was created by the framers of the constitution to protect against corrupt demagogues; the Electors should be given the full opportunity to vote their conscience if it is formally determined that Trump has broken the law. Throughout the campaign, allegations of Trump's illegal activities have surfaced: tax evasion, business scams, tenant intimidation, hiring of undocumented workers, illegal trade, bribery, sexual assault, incitement of violence, and collusion with a foreign government to influence an American election. If Trump is guilty of crimes, he does not deserve to be our President. https://twitter.com/CriminalTrump
Petition to Electors of Arizona, Electors of Arkansas, Electors of Georgia, Electors of Indiana, Electors of Iowa, Electors of Kansas, Electors of Louisiana, Electors of Missouri, Electors of North Dakota, Electors of Pennsylvania, Electors of Tennessee, Electors of Texas, Electors of Utah, Electors of West Virginia
Electors: Put a Republican in the White House who is NOT Donald Trump!
On December 19th, the Electoral College will meet to determine the next President of the United States. If business goes as usual, a man unfit to serve as President, Donald Trump, will be selected as the next President of the United States. Some petitioners are calling on the Republican Electors in states that allow faithless Electors to cast their ballots for Clinton instead. We realize this is not a realistic option. There is however, a third choice. Electors in states that allow it may choose to cast their vote for anybody Constitutionally qualified for the office, so long as at least one of their votes for President and Vice President is for a person outside of their own state. The person they vote for does not even have to have declared themselves a candidate. We therefore petition the Republican Electors, in the states they have won that allow faithless electors - Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia - to cast their vote for President for anyone they can in good conscience vote for, so long as it is NOT Donald Trump. If enough Republican Electors change their vote for President from Donald Trump to a third option, Trump loses his majority. In this case, the House of Representatives chooses the next President. They are allowed to choose from the top three electoral college winners - Trump, Clinton, and whichever third choice is most popular among Republican Electors not voting for Trump. We strongly believe that given a sane alternative choice that reflects Republican values, the House of Representatives would reject Trump and select the third option. The Republicans won the White House, but it doesn't have to be Donald Trump. For the relevant portions of the Constitution, see http://www.faithlessnow.com/constitution.pdf For an explanation of why you should NOT contact Electors directly, see http://www.faithlessnow.com/ (image credit - left two frames, wikimedia commons - right frame, TobiasSchumann(WMDE))
Petition to CT State Candidates
Ask candidates running for office in CT to support the National Popular Vote
Candidates for state office need to hear from voters about what's important to them. This is a great time to ask if candidates will support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if elected. The Compact is a nonpartisan solution to make everyone’s vote for president matter—regardless of whether they live in blue, red or battleground states—and to make the winner the candidate with the most votes, just the way we elect members to the CT General Assembly and statewide offices. So far, 10 states and the District of Columbia, with a total of 165 electoral votes, have joined the Compact (which goes into effect when there are 270 electoral votes represented, the number needed to win the presidency). The measure has been received favorably in the CT General Assembly going back to 2009. With 68 co-sponsors (more than ever before) and an unprecedented grassroots effort in 2017, the NPV bill, H.B. 5434, was just a few votes short of passing. By signing this petition, we can demonstrate to candidates who are exploring or running for office that Connecticut wants to #MakeEveryVoteMatter. The more candidates that pledge to support a National Popular Vote, the closer we'll get to passing the Compact and electing the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states.
Petition to Ken Paxton, Pam Bondi, Xavier Becerra, Mark Brnovich, Chris Carr, Eric T. Schneiderman, Lisa Madigan, Roy Cooper, Bruce Beemer, Mark Herring
Attorneys General: Ask U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Winner Take All for electors
Allocating electoral votes by Winner Take All is unfair and may be unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (one person, one vote). Before the 2020 presidential election, Attorneys General especially of populous states like California and New York should take this to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the Winner Take All system. "Lessig's equal protection argument…[is] on the right side of history and logic."—Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law and cofounder of American Constitution Society (December 5, 2016, on Twitter) Law professor and activist Lawrence Lessig writes (emphasis added), 'Yes, the Constitution creates an inequality because of the way it allocates electoral college votes. A state like Wyoming, for example, gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus…California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes. 'But the real inequality of the electoral college is created by the “winner take all” (WTA) rule for allocating electoral votes. WTA says that the person who wins the popular votes gets all the electoral college votes for that state. Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) allocates its electors based on WTA. But that system for allocating electoral votes is not mandated by the Constitution. It is created by the states. And so that raises what should be an obvious and much more fiercely contested question—why isn’t WTA being challenged by the Democrats in this election? 'The strongest argument about why it isn’t is an argument of reliance (some people gussy this up to a point about “the rule of law” but that’s just confused rhetoric): The election was waged assuming WTA; it’s not fair now, the argument goes, to change the rule for how electors will be counted. 'No doubt, it is unfair to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They spent money in reliance on the existing system. But that’s not the only “unfairness” at stake here: What about the unfairness being felt by the millions of voters whose votes were effectively diluted, or essentially disenfranchised? Why doesn’t their harm also weigh in the balance? 'It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?' Lessig quotes a statement of the argument written by Atlanta lawyer Larry Sims. Salient parts of Sims's argument (emphasis added): 'a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College would not. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one [person] one vote. … The winner-take-all allocation of multiple Electors (ranging from 3 Electors in our smallest states to 55 in our largest) denies any voice whatsoever to each state’s minority voters, no matter how substantial their vote may be. The distortion of presidential election results by the winner-take-all apportionment of a state’s Electors is an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the law.' Donald Trump threatens the U.S. Constitution itself through his aggressive statements against the press (threatening to "open up libel laws"), against free speech (suggesting the government should revoke citizenship as punishment for protest-burning the American flag, which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as protected speech), against religious groups (notably Muslims), promoting cruel and unusual punishment (Trump has spoken multiple times in support of waterboarding, which international and U.S. law have deemed torture, which is illegal), and against other institutions protected by the U.S. Constitution. Not only is Donald Trump apparently ignorant of the Constitution, his attacks make clear that he does not care to understand it or intend to uphold it. Given what is at stake, Attorneys General should take the argument against Winner Take All, which is not in the Constitution, to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo credit: AP/Evan Vucci/Getty/artisteer via Salon.com) Related articles: How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President Five presidential nominees who won popular vote but lost the election Updated 8/29/17 to edit recipients to match the top 10 states (as of 2008) whose voters are most impacted by biased representation due to Winner Take All. I also added links to a few related articles. While Democrats may be most aware of the unfairness of Winner Take All electors after the 2000 and 2016 elections, the 14th amendment of the Constitution is meant to apply to all U.S. citizens regardless of party affiliation, hence this is not a partisan issue. It's time to amend this undemocratic process that has allowed (at last count) five presidential candidates to win the most votes but lose the presidency. Updated 3/4/17 to replace Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, with Xavier Becerra, acting Attorney General for California. Updated 12/14/16 to add emphasis and another example of Trump's attacks on Constitutional institutions. A New York Times op-ed today titled "Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans" by Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen mentioned the Winner Take All unconstitutionality argument (emphasis added): "There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party." Updated 12/13/16 to add additional Attorneys General, per commented suggestion.
Petition to American people with a moral conscience
Declaration repudiating Trump and Trumpism
Declaration repudiating Donald Trump, his words and actions, and asserting his essential and irremediable unfitness to serve as President of the United States of America We strongly and unequivocally believe it to be the responsibility of every citizen in a properly functioning democracy and normal political environment to accept the outcome of an election freely and fairly conducted and to acknowledge, despite differences of opinion with regard to public policy and political-economic philosophy, those declared winners of such an election as the electorate’s legitimate leaders and representatives. When, however, the citizens are asked to choose between doing what is morally right and carrying out what is their customary responsibility in a democratic society to accept an election outcome, an extraordinary situation has arisen. No citizen should feel or be compelled to take a position for the sake of political expedience that is in violation of fundamental and universal moral principles. In such instance, the citizens have a right – and even a responsibility – to take a stand against an immoral outcome which has been deceitfully attained. That right and responsibility may reach so far as to repudiate the declared winner of such election. To recognize as legitimate such a declared winner of an election would be to commit an immoral act, and no political authority or system can rightfully oblige the citizenry to commit a shameful act which is offensive to fundamental and universally recognized morality. Whereas Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, his key staff, and many of his supporters made explicitly clear during the campaign that they would not feel compelled to accept the outcome of the election if they were to lose, Whereas Donald Trump and elements of the Republic Party ran a campaign based and built upon divisiveness, bigotry, racism, incitement to hatred and even violence, hypocrisy, slanderous untruths, and misrepresentation to an extent so extreme as to be inconsistent with fundamental human, American, and democratic values, Whereas Donald Trump, in contrast to all other major party candidates in perhaps the entire history of the United States has uniquely shown himself by his words and actions to be morally and temperamentally unfit to serve as President of the United States of America, Whereas forces within the Federal Bureau of Investigation took blatant steps to influence the election of Donald Trump in the last 11 days of the campaign, doing so with facilitation from, and perhaps the outright complicity of, FBI director James Comey, and whereas forces from outside the United States used stolen and perhaps falsified emails of Democratic Party officials to influence the election in favor of Trump, and whereas the Trump–Pence campaign exploited the FBI’s irresponsible actions and the stolen materials to create, publish and broadcast patently untrue and defamatory advertisements in the traditional media and to circulate similarly untrue and defamatory messages on social media, Whereas Donald Trump, since being declared most probably to have received the majority of the Electoral College votes, albeit while receiving some 2 million fewer of the popular votes than did the candidate who was his nearest rival, has shown every indication by his words and action that he will refuse to be bound by generally and historically accepted standards to avoid conflicts of interest and would indeed endeavor to utilize the office of president to further enrich himself and his family, and Whereas populist, anti-democratic, demagogic, and potentially authoritarian forces and politicians also are gathering strength in other countries beyond the United States, and notably so in numerous European countries, and whereas these forces and politicians are finding inspiration, encouragement, and public support in the successes of Trump and the vile words and deeds of his most abhorrent supporters, and inasmuch as this phenomenon provides comfort to and encourages greater boldness in our nation’s adversaries even as it threatens our democracy, international cooperation and world peace, Therefore, we the undersigned and those who will support our nonpartisan position and efforts resolve and unambiguously declare that we do not and will never accept that Donald Trump can or does legitimately serve as president of our free country with its tradition of equality, toleration and decency, law and order, or that he should be regarded as legitimately so serving. For us to do otherwise would be to commit an egregiously immoral act. We further declare that we will actively and continuously oppose Donald Trump’s illegitimate and wrongfully obtained claim to the office of the President of the United States of America, and we denounce those within his circle and any other political leader, whether or not formerly or currently holding public office, who had supported or condoned his candidacy and his unjust claim to the office of president.
Petition to Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Jamie Raskin, Steny Hoyer, Elijah Cummings, Chris Van Hollen, John Delaney, Andy Harris, Larry Hogan, Barbara Mikulski, Donald Trump
Finally abolish the outdated Electoral College from American voting system
The Electoral College was created to address concerns over mob rule and to satisfy the smaller states that thought they wouldn't be represented by the new federal government. The Founders of the Electoral College thought that having a small, well-informed group to back up the election would be a good idea. However, America is supposed to be a democracy, which means that the popular vote is most representative and democratic, not the electoral vote. The president is serving the people, the government is serving the people, so the vote should represent the people. Sign this petition to finally abolish the electoral college!