Texas elector threatens to not vote Trump

[tinman64]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-college-texas-chris-suprun-227422

Chris Suprun is a member of the Electoral College from Texas, a state the GOP can reliably count on to deliver votes every four years to the Republican presidential nominee.

But this year, with Donald Trump sitting atop the ticket, Suprun is warning he might not cast his electoral vote for the GOP standard-bearer. Indeed, he won’t rule out throwing his vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton if Trump doesn’t moderate his demeanor.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-college-texas-chris-suprun-227422#ixzz4IOBgqbD9

[Speed of Sound]

Didn't this happen already? They'll remove him in 5 milliseconds.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I'm afraid that Second Amendment People don't like to be threatened.

[Heisenberg]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

No. It should be allowed. There should always be a check on the masses.

[Inmate Trump]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

Ordinarily, I'd agree.  But this is an election like no other, and we need to keep Trumphitler from winning the presidency.

[Lachi]

If he wants to be a faithless elector, why did he think it was a good idea to say that, did he think that he wouldn't be thrown out of the elector position?

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

If he wants to be a faithless elector, why did he think it was a good idea to say that, did he think that he wouldn't be thrown out of the elector position?

[Santander]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

No. It should be allowed. There should always be a check on the masses.

Why even have elections?

[Speed of Sound]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

No. It should be allowed. There should always be a check on the masses.

Why even have elections?

Why have an electoral college? I agree that this is a pointless and dumb idea by the elector, but what's the college's point if electors are 100% bound? That might as well by a PV election, then.

[dspNY]

Yeah this will be like the GA faithless elector; he'll be gone by next week if not tomorrow.

Still, that begs the question:
Two electors in Republican states have now said this.  Is it possible there really might be a few who do this and do not announce it ahead of time?

[Santander]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

No. It should be allowed. There should always be a check on the masses.

Why even have elections?

Why have an electoral college? I agree that this is a pointless and dumb idea by the elector, but what's the college's point if electors are 100% bound? That might as well by a PV election, then.

Well first, having an electoral college comprised solely of bound electors would still be different than a straight PV election. But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.

The votes cast by faithless electors through history, when looking back, tell us a lot about that election. I don't feel there's a need to bind electors, but openly threatening to defy the voters because of a bogus "conscience" reason is ridiculous, since electors do not exist to express their individual conscience, even if there was a conscience issue. Endorsing that kind of thinking is just as outrageous.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.

Why not? If the tradition is dumb, shouldn't we get rid of it?

There may be arguments in favor of keeping the electoral college, but "that's the way it's always been" isn't one of them. Article V exists for a reason.

[Santander]

But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.

Why not? If the tradition is dumb, shouldn't we get rid of it?

There may be arguments in favor of keeping the electoral college, but "that's the way it's always been" isn't one of them. Article V exists for a reason.

Let's start with the Department of Education then.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

No. It should be allowed. There should always be a check on the masses.

I hope you don't mind then that Trump will be trying so the same [check the choice of the masses] if becoming President?

[SteveRogers]

Well first, having an electoral college comprised solely of bound electors would still be different than a straight PV election. But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.

"Because tradition" is a logical fallacy in general and an especially stupid argument for keeping the electoral college around. Our country decided very early on that the roles of both the presidency and the presidential election were going to be vastly different from what the framers intended when they designed the electoral college. The electoral college was an anachronism by 1828. Most of the actual arguments that people throw around today for keeping the EC (preventing ties, etc.) are post hoc rationalizations that have nothing to do with why the EC was implemented in the first place. The EC certainly no longer serves one of its original primary functions, protecting the interests of small states.

The votes cast by faithless electors through history, when looking back, tell us a lot about that election. I don't feel there's a need to bind electors, but openly threatening to defy the voters because of a bogus "conscience" reason is ridiculous, since electors do not exist to express their individual conscience, even if there was a conscience issue. Endorsing that kind of thinking is just as outrageous.

Don't they, though? The original main purpose of the EC was literally to keep the presidency in the control of the independent judgment of a small group of elites and out of the hands of the masses.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.

Why not? If the tradition is dumb, shouldn't we get rid of it?

There may be arguments in favor of keeping the electoral college, but "that's the way it's always been" isn't one of them. Article V exists for a reason.

Let's start with the Department of Education then.

Right, so that's called dodging the question. Whether or not the Department of Education should exists has nothing to do with the wisdom of preserving the electoral college.

[Speed of Sound]

But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.

Why not? If the tradition is dumb, shouldn't we get rid of it?

There may be arguments in favor of keeping the electoral college, but "that's the way it's always been" isn't one of them. Article V exists for a reason.

Let's start with the Department of Education then.

Right, so that's called dodging the question. Whether or not the Department of Education should exists has nothing to do with the wisdom of preserving the electoral college.

There's been enough blue dodgers here today to set up a full team in the NL West.

[Xing]

I can't imagine a scenario in which this one elector (who, as others have said, will probably be gone soon) could tip the outcome of the election. I agree that electors normally shouldn't do this, but I could support an elector doing it if the candidate who won the popular vote lost in the electoral count.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This simply shouldn't be allowed, regardless of what you think of the candidate.

No. It should be allowed. There should always be a check on the masses.

Lol

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I can't imagine a scenario in which this one elector (who, as others have said, will probably be gone soon) could tip the outcome of the election. I agree that electors normally shouldn't do this, but I could support an elector doing it if the candidate who won the popular vote lost in the electoral count.

[Xing]

I can't imagine a scenario in which this one elector (who, as others have said, will probably be gone soon) could tip the outcome of the election. I agree that electors normally shouldn't do this, but I could support an elector doing it if the candidate who won the popular vote lost in the electoral count.

I've seen this mentioned as a possible map, but the way things are going, I don't see Trump winning NV or NH, especially if he's losing PA.

[Arbitrage1980]

Nothing in the 12th Amendment of the Constitution (which deals with the Electoral College) or Article 2 prevents electors from voting for someone else.  Now, about half the states have laws that prevent faithless electors, but the Supreme Court has not ruled on a case involving faithless electors.  Depending on the state, it is totally possible for the elector to be censured or in some cases have his vote voided, but a criminal penalty is highly unlikely.  We are NOT a pure democracy; we are a constitutional republic.  Read the Federalist Papers to get a sense of how much disdain (and rightly so) the Founding Fathers had of the masses getting out of control.  The ignorance and anger of the masses is what brought us the Trump vs Hillary match-up, the worst in American history. 

Theoretically, it is actually possible for someone whose name was not even on the ballot for President to be elected President.  Here's how it would work.  Let's say that Trump wins the election with say 273 electoral votes to Hillary's 265.  Let's assume that Trump wins Utah's 6 electoral votes.  When the electors of each state meet at their respective state capitols in early December to officially vote, Utah's 6 electors decide to defect and cast a vote for Mitt Romney.  When the results of the electoral college are officially certified in the House after the new session is sworn in, Trump has 267, Hillary 265, Romney 6.  Under the Constitution, this means that the election will be decided by the House state delegations since no one has a majority.  This will of course NEVER happen, but if at least 26 state delegations decide to go with Romney rather than Trump (the argument being that Romney is the actual Republican, and democrats go along with it because they would much rather have Romney as President than Trump), Romney would be the President of the United States.  Of course, it goes without saying that something like this will result in the American people totally losing faith in our system, and I would expect massive civil unrest.

[Joe Republic]

Chris Suprun is a member of the Electoral College from Texas, a state the GOP can reliably count on to deliver votes every four years to the Republican presidential nominee.

But this year, with Donald Trump sitting atop the ticket, Suprun is warning he might not cast his electoral vote for the GOP standard-bearer. Indeed, he won’t rule out throwing his vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton if Trump doesn’t moderate his demeanor.

This is particularly interesting.  The last time a faithless elector voted for somebody not from their own party was in 1972 (a Nixon elector voted for the Libertarian ticket).  But I don't believe any faithless elector has ever voted for the main opposition candidate, ever.  This is a pretty big deal... or would have been if he'd kept his mouth shut and then followed through on his flirtatious plan.

[Arbitrage1980]

Chris Suprun is a member of the Electoral College from Texas, a state the GOP can reliably count on to deliver votes every four years to the Republican presidential nominee.

But this year, with Donald Trump sitting atop the ticket, Suprun is warning he might not cast his electoral vote for the GOP standard-bearer. Indeed, he won’t rule out throwing his vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton if Trump doesn’t moderate his demeanor.

This is particularly interesting.  The last time a faithless elector voted for somebody not from their own party was in 1972 (a Nixon elector voted for the Libertarian ticket).  But I don't believe any faithless elector has ever voted for the main opposition candidate, ever.  This is a pretty big deal... or would have been if he'd kept his mouth shut and then followed through on his flirtatious plan.

Yeah it would be unprecedented.  1960 was interesting because a number of electors from Alabama and Mississippi voted for Harry Byrd instead of JFK, but that was due to the way the elector slates were presented on the ballot rather than faithlessness.  In 1988 a West Virginia elector voted for Bentsen rather than Dukakis, and in 2004 a Minnesota elector voted for Edwards rather than Kerry.