AP: Washington Democratic elector says he will not vote for Clinton
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:24:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  AP: Washington Democratic elector says he will not vote for Clinton
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: AP: Washington Democratic elector says he will not vote for Clinton  (Read 2836 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2016, 01:01:07 PM »

oh ffs
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2016, 02:47:28 PM »

This is some real selfishness on his part. He can cast his regular vote based on how he feels about the candidates. The electoral college vote is supposed to validate the will of the people, not serve as his protest mechanism. If he can't do what is required of him, he should step down.

And he shouldn't be hoping more people do this, either. No electors should be casting protest votes. They need to respect the people's votes. If the state says to vote according to the PV of their state/CD, then that is what they should do. If they can't, step down. That applies to electors for Trump as well.

Just another reason we need to abolish the EC. We can't have people like this hijacking the EC to drive their own agenda.

Actually when the drafters put together the Constitution, they specifically intended for the electors to vote freely and unbound in case some issue should arise. At one point the Convention considered having Congress elect the president, but they didn't want the President to be overly indebted to Congress. That led to the EC which functions as a temporary, shadow Congress to elect the Pres/VP. Protest votes by electors contrary to the statewide vote would be completely consistent with the intent.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2016, 03:07:39 PM »

This is some real selfishness on his part. He can cast his regular vote based on how he feels about the candidates. The electoral college vote is supposed to validate the will of the people, not serve as his protest mechanism. If he can't do what is required of him, he should step down.

And he shouldn't be hoping more people do this, either. No electors should be casting protest votes. They need to respect the people's votes. If the state says to vote according to the PV of their state/CD, then that is what they should do. If they can't, step down. That applies to electors for Trump as well.

Just another reason we need to abolish the EC. We can't have people like this hijacking the EC to drive their own agenda.

Actually when the drafters put together the Constitution, they specifically intended for the electors to vote freely and unbound in case some issue should arise. At one point the Convention considered having Congress elect the president, but they didn't want the President to be overly indebted to Congress. That led to the EC which functions as a temporary, shadow Congress to elect the Pres/VP. Protest votes by electors contrary to the statewide vote would be completely consistent with the intent.

There's no actual issue with Clinton, though.  He's just voting this way because he wants to protest against her, waaah waah Bernie didn't win, and he doesn't think she cares enough about "native American issues" (the new "income inequality" and "corporate greed" super-vague umbrella that Bernie's people just use to self-righteously accuse "corporate Dems" of not caring enough about).  The founders didn't intend for the electoral college to be some whiner putting in a protest vote because he personally doesn't like the candidate that won.  It was supposed to be for cases like if Aaron Burr had been elected president and done all his crazy stuff, or if Trump is convicted of raping little girls between now and January.  Or cases like when Horace Greeley died.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2016, 07:00:46 PM »

If Clinton goes below 270 due to a faithless elector, the House will choose Trump.
If Trump goes below 270 due to faithless electors, he will still be chosen by the House.
The House votes by states and a President needs 26 state votes to win, the GOP has a majority in 33 states (the Democrats only in 14).
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2016, 07:48:33 PM »

If Clinton goes below 270 due to a faithless elector, the House will choose Trump.
If Trump goes below 270 due to faithless electors, he will still be chosen by the House.
The House votes by states and a President needs 26 state votes to win, the GOP has a majority in 33 states (the Democrats only in 14).

I am not convinced that the House would not choose someone other than Trump if a Faithless Elector chose to vote for a Republican who was House Republicans' idea of a President.  Like Paul Ryan.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2016, 07:53:19 PM »

Actually when the drafters put together the Constitution, they specifically intended for the electors to vote freely and unbound in case some issue should arise. At one point the Convention considered having Congress elect the president, but they didn't want the President to be overly indebted to Congress. That led to the EC which functions as a temporary, shadow Congress to elect the Pres/VP. Protest votes by electors contrary to the statewide vote would be completely consistent with the intent.

Right, but honestly that is irrelevant now. That's just not how the system is expected to work by the people anymore. People expect the winner of the popular vote to become president, and even if we have another 2000-style situation, people of said states would still expect the winner of the popular vote in that state to win the state in the EC.

I've talked to a lot of people about this over the past half decade, and never have I come across someone who says "well it's the electors choice." This is on top of many not even understanding what the EC is, hence the emphasis on the PV win.

In the end, if he does this, it'll be talked about but ultimately forgotten about... but if somehow it came down to a situation where he ends up swaying the election to Trump, the electoral college is going to become public enemy #1. People don't expect electors to freely choose who they want. They believe their vote counts, and dicks like this WA crybaby only help to hurt confidence in our elections with these kinds of stunts.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2016, 08:04:50 PM »

If this would decide the election to 269-268-1, would the GOP House just accept Clinton or would they go on and vote for Trump?

The House would probably deadlock, and whoever the Senate elects as VP would become president.

multiple ballots until somebody receives a majority. it must be one of the 3 who received the most electoral votes for pres, not vp

But someone might never receive a majority.  That's my point.  As we've gone over in threads like this before, there are likely enough anti-Trump Republicans in the House to block his election there, especially since the Republicans are likely to lose some more seats next week.  So if the House elects no one as president, then whoever the Senate elects as VP would then take over as president.


Of course, he'd be the "Acting President".  It would be unprecedented.  It would be like John Tyler being referred to "His Accidency" after William Henry Harrison died in office.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 13 queries.