A friend sent this. What do you think?
“I reread the Constitution, and the twelfth and twentieth amendments. I can’t see any real restriction on the Electors, nothing legally to stop them ditching both Trump and Clinton. Also, I can’t see anything mandating that the election be held, only that Obama’s term is up. There doesn’t seem to be a constitutional prohibition on not having a president for four years.
“Alternatively, in the event of no qualified president having been elected, it seems the Congress can appoint anyone it wants. Since a majority in the Congress oppose both Trump and Clinton, as does the majority of the American people, I don’t understand why this is not being pursued. Wouldn’t that be the democratic thing to do?
It does not seem legally necessary to have this election in November with these two candidates. And since it should be obvious to anyone that the majority of the American people do not want this election with these two candidates, I do not see why it is proceeding. All that is needed is for the Electors or the Congress to do their obvious duty in these circumstances.
If not, then we will be in the untenable position that we do not have a government of the people by the people for the people; we will not have the consent of the governed; and so the government will, sadly, be illegitimate.”
I know it would never happen—there are too many moneyed interests involved to stop it—but I think it’s worth thinking about.