The Electoral College will select the 45th president of the United States on December 19, 2016 and many political science experts predict that, although there is no Constitutional requirement that Electors must vote for the candidate to which they are pledged, they are unlikely to vote against the Election Day results for a number of reasons. The reasons against the possibility of a dissenting vote include the lack of an endorsement to do so by the sitting president or the former Secretary of State, the strong political affiliations of the Electors to their respective parties, and the lack of compelling precedent.

These are certainly valid arguments and they hold historical merit, however, in the four weeks since the General Election we have seen precedent thrown out the window, bounced into the middle of the street, run over by garbage truck, and littered with feces by passing dogs. But I digress, let’s look at the rationale behind the Electoral College as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton (Note: I am aware of the ongoing debate about the roots of the Electoral College and its relevance to today’s American society but let’s follow the argument).

As written in The Federalist Papers, the College exists such “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

The “requisite qualifications” have been repeatedly deliberated over and they are clearly wanting, but study that last phrase, “…to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” In other words, the Electors were designed to be impartial, independent of party affiliation, and in an unbiased position to weigh all of the factors pertinent to the candidates for the office.

This year the Electoral College members have more information about the candidates than has ever been available before thanks to the benefit of modern technology, a 24-hour news cycle, and widespread media. The president-elect, for debatable reasons including a lack of experience, an apparent unstable sense of self and “thin skin”, and an irrepressible desire to speak out raw and unfiltered has provided the Electors with a dress rehearsal and it is not good! By many accounts, the man playing this role either IS a fool or is playing the role AS a fool. At this point, it doesn’t matter which because neither course is fit for the Presidency and this needs to be recognized.

In the 26 days since Election Day, the apparent president-elect has:

(1) Demonstrated a lack of clear understanding of what nepotism and a blind trust entail and has already intermixed business interests with diplomatic/trade relations with Japan and India

(2) Gathered members of the mainstream media and allegedly scolded them for their negative coverage of him and the unflattering images of him aired for broadcast,

(3) Suggested that there were millions of instances of voter fraud in an election that he won by all accounts as of this writing

(4) Spent more time during this transition period denouncing personal attacks against his character while ignoring racism-fueled attacks within the U.S. and his daily national security briefings,

(5) Lobbied for the Secret Service to manage the security of the first family within a floor of Trump Tower with monthly rent going to Trump’s existing business assets

(6) Nominated several individuals for Cabinet positions whose positions are extreme, unpopular, arguably racist, and/or whose qualifications are highly questionable,

(7) Casually breezed through phone conversations with the leaders of the Philippines and Pakistan with no preparation and no recognition of the complex state of diplomatic relations with either of these countries (but with a keen eye on the business potential therein),

(8) Encouraged a re-thinking of First Amendment rights with suggested (but currently protected) “violations” deemed worthy of loss of citizenship or prison

(9) Broken 40 years of diplomatic precedent by speaking to the president of the Chinese province of Taiwan directly and in opposition of standing Sino-U.S. relations,

and (10) Publicly criticized China (on Twitter!), with whom he and the U.S. government both have significant, if not critical, financial obligations,

The latter move by Mr. Trump on Sunday led former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer to Tweet, “To call this is a diplomatic strategy would be like calling a monkey throwing its feces against the wall artistic expression.”

We are in unprecedented times and no matter the result, odds are the results are going to be tumultuous. A growing number of Americans are lobbying for another break in precedent (this time as laid out by our Founding Fathers) and that is to select the next president in an unbiased, unbound, and unabashed manner.