NBC says that this ‘faithless elector’ betrayed his state’s voters.

But they are wrong.

Colorado's Micheal Baca appears to be one of very few who understands the intent of the Electoral College.

And he tried to use his vote to prevent Trump in 2016.
/1 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1120551?__twitter_impression=true

Baca appears to have had an interesting plan to prevent Trump from achieving office.

As an elector, he went against the rules of his state (along with 28 other states), which say that Electors *must* cast their votes for the candidate that won the popular vote in their state.
/2

Baca tried to cast his vote for Kucinich, which seems strange since Kucinich was not even on the ballot in the general election.

But he contacted many Republican electors, and tried to convince them to do the same, thinking a Republican vote would be a good compromise.

Why?
/3

Like so many parts of our constitutional government, the EC was a result of a compromise - balancing the need of the people to set the direction of their own government, against the risks of the shifting emotions of the public to shake the stability of the republic itself.

/4

During the opening arguments of the impeachment trial this week, the House Managers have referred to Alexander Hamilton's prescience, regarding his warnings about the risks of popular demagogues.

His 1792 letter to George Washington was quoted as a highly relevant example.

/5

We are living in exactly the situation that Hamilton feared.

He didn't only discuss these dangers in letters to Washington - he helped enshrine protections against them in our Constitutional Republic.

He described one of these in Federalist 68:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
/6

First, he said that electing a President - an office with profound power - should be undertaken by a small group of people who understood the requirements of the office.

And that they should make the decision in the circumstances that were most conducive to the process.
/7

What were those circumstances?
Hamilton says that these several electors in each state (chosen by their state's citizens) should assemble in their home states separately, and decide which candidate to vote for.

In the majority of circumstances, this would represent the will
/8

of the people. After all, the electors were chosen by the people of their state, and would have to answer to them.

But if the people, swept up in populist sentiment, had chosen an unqualified demagogue to be elected to the office of the President...
/9

then it was the job of the College of Electors to decide whether the most popular candidate had the experience, proficiency, and the temperament required for the office of the Presidency.

If not, then it was the Electors' job to cast their votes for the qualified candidate.
/10

Then, if no candidate received the majority of the Electors' votes, the House of Representatives would consider the five most popular candidates, and they would themselves vote to choose the President.

/11

And, as he describes, the expected outcome of this process is to ensure, with a certainty, that we never elect an unqualified candidate simply because the candidate possesses "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity"

In other words, Donald John Trump
/12

In 2016, Micheal Baca of Colorado - a Democrat and a Bernie Sanders supporter at the time - saw that his state was voting *against* electing Donald Trump as President.

When Trump appeared to have won the election, he began working with the other Electors to cast votes.

/13

As Baca says, "It would have been an honor to vote for Clinton, but voting for her would not have prevented a Trump presidency," he said. "I just felt like I had to do everything I could to prevent that from happening."

And so he spoke with dozens of other electors, pitching
/14

a compromise: If he, along with 37 Republicans, could agree to cast their votes for John Kasich, then they might have a chance to prevent Trump from reaching the 270 electoral votes required to achieve the Presidency.

Not only was he doing his job...
/15

Micheal Baca showed exactly the kind of restraint that the founders had hoped for.

He was able to transcend his own personal bias and preference, and to compromise when it was necessary in order to prevent the nation from coming under the leadership of a demagogue.

/16

Baca's plan was ultimately unsuccessful, to all of our detriment - he wasn't allowed to cast his vote.

But in court, he won the right for electors to vote freely.

That has been challenged, and last Friday the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

/17 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/faithless-elector-supreme-court-will-hear-case-could-change-how-n1113051

There are two important takeaways here:
First, this is an important case, being taken up in a very important election year, that could potentially have a very significant impact on the 2020 election.

I am not an attorney, but I would welcome one to weigh in on the odds. :-)
/18

Secondly - and just as importantly - we should all take a step back from our biases and personal choices, and take a lesson from Baca's pragmatic actions in 2016.

As a voter, he was willing to compromise in order to do the duty that the constitution required of him.
...
/19

The Electoral College no longer serves as a check against populist sentiment.

That means the responsibility is now on us - we are all now the Electoral College.

During primaries, and especially in November, we should all take that duty seriously.
/20

Rather than allowing our personal affinity for any candidate to guide our decision, we need to think rationally about who has the experience - and the temperament - that the office demands; to vote dispassionately in 2020, like the Electors that we are.

We need to #VoteLikeBaca

Correction (because of course I would make a mistake near the top) - for some reason, in the 3rd tweet, I typed Kucinich instead of Kasich. They are completely different people - it should have been Kasich.