Our Constitutional Democracy Requires the Electoral College to Vote for Clinton.
Nancy Chi Cantalupo and Judith E. Koons, Barry University School of Law
Nancy Chi Cantalupo
Judith E. Koons
No matter how one interprets the proper purposes and history of the Electoral College, if the electors who make up the 2016 Electoral College want to vote based on either Constitutional or democratic principles—and not just political expediency or blind obedience—they must vote for Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States. If the Electoral College instead proceeds as it has in the modern era, it will elect Donald Trump, who represents, at best, a minority of voters.
Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton by over 2.8 million as of early December, but because of the way the Electoral College now works, 80,000 votes in three states were decisive. All three of these states have faced demands for a recount, an effort funded by nearly 140,000 donors skeptical about the integrity of the original vote count at least in part due to significant, credible evidence that a hostile foreign government engaged in cyberattacks to sway the election in favor of Trump.
A portion of this minority has already proven itself tyrannical in a very real way. In the few weeks since the election was “called” on November 9th, nearly 900 hate crimes have been directed at immigrants, members of the LGBT community, people of color, Muslims, and women. Over 180 of these crimes have taken place in K-12 schools.
But the hateful threats and violence perpetrated by this minority of the minority are not the only way an Electoral College vote for Trump would enable a “tyranny of the minority.” Continue reading “Tyranny of the Minority”
Talking back to post-election hate speech.
I walked into my office one recent Monday, coffee mug in hand and noticed the red light signaling that a voicemail awaited me.
Has it started already?
That morning, my op-ed about post-election acts of hate on college campuses appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer. The piece discussed incidents at universities in Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania, complete with hypertext links, and explained why, contrary to conservative pundits, student fears were based on reality and not a temper tantrum about Trump’s victory. I praised institutions for taking action and argued that Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric gave license to misconduct targeting people of color, Muslims, and frankly all the groups the candidate insulted and denigrated on his way to the White House.
Based on prior experiences, I was braced for negative responses from conservative readers in the comments section. In truth, I had planned to avoid those like a Ted Nugent concert. But, a voicemail? Readers usually never called to complain. Maybe I was overreacting. I decided to listen.
It started off innocuously enough. Continue reading “Rise Up!”
What Academics Can Learn from Black Sociology’s Response to Jim Crow America.
Guest Contributor: Earl Morris II, UC Africana Studies Professor
On November 8, 2016 Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States of America. Many Americans greeted this fact with trepidation Trump’s presidential campaign garnered the favor of groups including, but not limited to, the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and other White supremacists. Trump became their candidate of choice because of his divisive rhetoric on such groups as Muslims, Mexican Americans, and African Americans. In the aftermath of an election where he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by nearly three million, this nation has witnessed a surge in hate crimes.
Trump’s shocking win dismayed not only by the groups mentioned above, but also by many academics experiencing unease and anxiety from campus environments altered in new, troubling ways since the election. Conservative groups have launched an aggressive aggressive campaign that encourages college students to “out” liberal/progressive faculty. Essentially, encouraging and promoting a “hit list” of “unpatriotic” faculty, which places the lives of many faculty engaged in social justice work, whether in the class or via research, in jeopardy.
While events surrounding the 2016 presidential election are causing some to literally fear for the lives and livelihood of themselves and their family and friends, I would be remiss if I did not remind you that, “we’ve been here before!” What I suggest in this brief essay is that contemporary academics can learn from Black Sociology, or Jim Crow sociology, how to navigate this current era of “Trumperica.” Continue reading “We’ve Been Here Before!”
Making sense of the election.
I had a dream.
On election night, a bright blue map would emanate from my flat screen TV. We’d be elated by news of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. From sea to shining sea, the results would repudiate Trump, his hate-filled campaign, and drive a stake in the heart of the Southern strategy of using race to leverage working class white votes.
We know how that turned out. On Wednesday, I could barely bring myself to work. Heart heavy, I felt as if I’d experienced a death.
What’s bugging me now is the attempt to negate the implications of Trump’s bigotry for the outcome. For example, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof says we shouldn’t label Trump supporters as racists: “many are good people who had voted for Obama in the past.” Maybe they’re not, but they supported a racist, sexist xenophobe. Continue reading “Mourning in America”