I’m not optimistic the electoral college is actually going to intervene and save us from Putin’s BFF. But we can always hope that we won’t have to be governed by the conspiracy theory racist rich but indebted guy, can’t we?
For some reason, voting for someone other than your state’s “winner” is called being a “faithless elector.” Which admittedly doesn’t sound so good.
But what we’re needing is an unprecedented number of faithless electors to stand up and say what we’re all thinking: this guy is not presidential material and although he did pull off an epic con, sorry, that still doesn’t get your POTUS. Oops, there I go again, with my rich fantasy life.
Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election. — history.com
But this article from medium.com does a nice job of laying out some possibilities open to the Democratic party.
There is a tremendous disparity in the difference of the individual voters between states and a questionable and dated ethos for the existence of the electoral college. It’s time to fix that.