First Republican 'faithless elector' announces intent to vote against Trump

[gimmemo]

you have to remember these people are so fucked up in the head they think they are standing for justice and the nation. much like a protestor wears an arrest like a badge of honor they will think their little stunt is something to be proud of. i dont know how you make a person like that think reasonably. wish i could talk to that person and see what in their life went so wrong to get them that fucked up.

This guy is a hero. He served as a firefighter during 9/11 attack. So now he's not on board with the "trumpist" agenda, he's suddenly all fucked up? Trumpsters will spin and spin and spin anything to get what they want. Very very dangerous.

[zenkai]

I fully understand the point of having the Electoral College and frankly I agree with it.

What I don't get is why the Electors can choose whomever the fuck they want. If the people you represent vote for a certain person then you need to vote for a certain person. It's not what you want. It's what the people you represent want.

Also it is rather amusing how giddy the left is here at the thought of the College betraying the trust of those they represent by possibly voting against who they should be voting for. If the fucking tables were turned on this you'd have a cry fest so massive the Hoover Damn couldn't contain all the tears.

Yeah, no joke, Imagine if Clinton was nominated and some guy was like fuck it, I am casting my lot in for Trump. They would beat him to death with their selfie sticks.

[I Push Buttons]

Most states have laws against faithless electors that would invalidate their faithless vote and would appoint new electors in their stead.
If those people are so eager to discredit themselves and marr their reputation, so be it, nothing will come of it

No, half of the states don't even have laws against faithless electors and most of those that do slap them with a small fine.

Very few invalidate a faithless elector's vote and replace them with someone who will vote for whom they were pledged.

[Noxx79]

Taken from Wikipedia:


And to safeguard against what? Against democracy in action? You liberals amuse me more and more by the day. There's no way for Clinton to be elected 45th POTUS, deal with it already, don't go around making up some "safeguard" mechanisms, that would just serve to keep you in safespace, when reality is different.
Electors must enforce the will of people, should they fail, and elect Clinton instead, well, you'd better have some guns ready, because people would not stand for it, and there will be civil war.
Crooked Hillary is gone for good man, the sooner you'll accept it, the better it would be for the US

"Democracy in action" says that Hillary won the vote by 2.5 million votes. What you're arguing for is the continuing of the "republic in action"

[Endus]

No, half of the states don't even have laws against faithless electors and most of those that do slap them with a small fine.

Very few invalidate a faithless elector's vote and replace them with someone who will vote for whom they were pledged.

And really, they have a list of alternates.

Nobody's tested it to find out what happens if they run out of alternates.

[Deleted]

Which is silly as balls.

If you're going to throw out their vote and get a new person to vote in their place if they don't vote "the right way", why even have Electors at all?

There is no valid way for the state to withdraw a vote by an elector, under federal law.
So they cant.

[gimmemo]

Just that this is even happening should show how UNHAPPY the people are that Trump is going in office. The majority of people are NOT happy with the incoming administration.

[cubby]

And really, they have a list of alternates.

Nobody's tested it to find out what happens if they run out of alternates.

December 19th might be the second in that month that will live in infamy.

[God Save The King]

Not only is this NOT a "requirement", it's one where we've got actual historical examples to point to, like the guy who voted for Reagan in '76 despite Ford getting the Republican nomination. Or 1960, when 14 Electors voted for Byrd, despite him not being a candidate. And so forth.

It's just flat-out not a requirement.

Sorry requirement was a bad choice of words. Electors are free to vote for who they want, but only those candidates who have formally stated they are candidates can be chosen as President by the House, assuming they received at least one electoral vote, were one of the top three electoral vote getters, and no candidate received a majority.

[Deleted]

WRONG

It's to make sure that a party, that has a majority of people but are located in a small part of the country, does NOT outweigh the majority of the nation as a whole. Which is what EXACTLY happened. Clinton has the Popular Vote, but ONLY in a handful of states. While Trump got the majority of state votes as a whole.

And let the slave states keep slavery.
And because it's impractical to keep a tally of actual votes.
And to let people vote for a party and then let the party pick (that one's out of fashion though).

[God Save The King]

This is explicitly not how the US system works. This is all laid out in the 12th Amendment. There's no mention of official candidacy as a requirement of any sort whatsoever.

Correct. Our legislation has written codes surrounding the amendments to clarify the process. The vast majority of our election process is not written into the constitution, they're in state and federal laws. One of the federal ones states various requirements to receive votes, as do several states.

[Azadina]

People like "Christopher Suprun" (the person in the article) should run for office. He is a true patriot and has the guts to go against stupidity, I'd vote for him any time any day.

But Trump.... God help America.

He left America on November 8th.

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah, no joke, Imagine if Clinton was nominated and some guy was like fuck it, I am casting my lot in for Trump. They would beat him to death with their selfie sticks.

Except that this republican elector has said he is not giving it to Clinton he just cannot stomach Trump.

[God Save The King]

Way to shift the goalposts, lol.

I didn't shift the goalposts, "I was correcting your mistakes, and instead of accepting it graciously, you do the anonymous forum poster thing and become a dick about it. Fine". See I can do it too.

[Endus]

There is no valid way for the state to withdraw a vote by an elector, under federal law.
So they cant.

Define "valid".

It's State law in a few States. It hasn't been tested at the SCOTUS level for constitutionality, but until it has, the law stands as-is. So in short, yes, there are.

Michigan State law

Refusal or failure to vote for the candidates for president and vice-president appearing on the Michigan ballot of the political party which nominated the elector constitutes a resignation from the office of elector, his vote shall not be recorded and the remaining electors shall forthwith fill the vacancy.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(c2...ame=mcl-168-47

Sorry requirement was a bad choice of words. Electors are free to vote for who they want, but only those candidates who have formally stated they are candidates can be chosen as President by the House, assuming they received at least one electoral vote, were one of the top three electoral vote getters, and no candidate received a majority.

Again, this is false. You have no basis for this claim, and it contradicts the 12th Amendment.

[The Emperor]

"Democracy in action" says that Hillary won the vote by 2.5 million votes. What you're arguing for is the continuing of the "republic in action"

Because when democracy doesn't go your way, it's not a democracy(c) sore losers-liberals

[Kiri]

Electors must enforce the will of people, should they fail, and elect Clinton instead, well, you'd better have some guns ready, because people would not stand for it, and there will be civil war.
Crooked Hillary is gone for good man, the sooner you'll accept it, the better it would be for the US

That made my day in light of all the 'stop protesting already' comments when Trump wins via the EC. Though you seem to still seem to fail to see that this is not about Hillary at all, but about a different Republican candidate, if at all.

Edit:

Because when democracy doesn't go your way, it's not a democracy(c) sore losers-liberals

It is Trump advocates who keep saying the USA is not a democracy, but a republic.

[Kalis]

"Democracy in action" says that Hillary won the vote by 2.5 million votes. What you're arguing for is the continuing of the "republic in action"

The election was on an FPTP basis, which makes the concept of winning the popular vote a nonsense. Only ignorance in action says that Clinton won.

[Deleted]

Define "valid".

It's State law in a few States. It hasn't been tested at the SCOTUS level for constitutionality, but until it has, the law stands as-is. So in short, yes, there are.

Michigan State law

Refusal or failure to vote for the candidates for president and vice-president appearing on the Michigan ballot of the political party which nominated the elector constitutes a resignation from the office of elector, his vote shall not be recorded and the remaining electors shall forthwith fill the vacancy.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(c2...ame=mcl-168-47

Yes they say his vote will not counted, but its not the states doing the counting.
And more importantly, there is only one round of voting - There is no 'do-over' permitted.

[zenkai]

Except that this republican elector has said he is not giving it to Clinton he just cannot stomach Trump.

Didn't say he was. you can change it from Clinton to Stein if you want, and my statement remains the same.