Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
that's what most electors that do not want to cast their vote for Trump, ARE AFRAID OF.......ending up dead....In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.
that's what most electors that do not want to cast their vote for Trump, ARE AFRAID OF.......ending up dead....In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.
Why can't we have both the will of the people and will of the state? WaitingFor2020Dear tinydancer according to this article, Texas does not mandate that. There are other states that fine Electors or replace them if they don't vote as the state voted.As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.
It makes sense to me that the POINT of human Electors voting IS to check against some extreme case of fraud. If it were automatic we wouldn't need people, we'd just have a point system where the minute the candidate wins a majority of the state vote, the minute it's confirmed, then "automatically" the number of Electoral votes or points gets added to their score. We wouldn't need humans to vote. The point of that is to allow one more check.
So in case something goes wrong like in other countries how an oppressive dictator forces everyone to vote for them or die, if corruption that bad were to skew the votes by force, for example, the Electors could still check against that abuse.
No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.
He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.
And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.
Is the will of the people in any way like the popular vote? Sorry, can't have it both ways, trailer trash.
Dear tinydancer according to this article, Texas does not mandate that. There are other states that fine Electors or replace them if they don't vote as the state voted.As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.
It makes sense to me that the POINT of human Electors voting IS to check against some extreme case of fraud. If it were automatic we wouldn't need people, we'd just have a point system where the minute the candidate wins a majority of the state vote, the minute it's confirmed, then "automatically" the number of Electoral votes or points gets added to their score. We wouldn't need humans to vote. The point of that is to allow one more check.
So in case something goes wrong like in other countries how an oppressive dictator forces everyone to vote for them or die, if corruption that bad were to skew the votes by force, for example, the Electors could still check against that abuse.
No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.
He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.
And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.
Is the will of the people in any way like the popular vote? Sorry, can't have it both ways, trailer trash.
yeah yeah yeah, yadahdahdahdahdah....that's what most electors that do not want to cast their vote for Trump, ARE AFRAID OF.......ending up dead....In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.
No, that's a Cinton modus operandi
From a Texas relative: The Texas Republican Party has stated that if Suprun persists in his plan to not vote for Trump, they are going to replace him.
yeah yeah yeah, yadahdahdahdahdah....that's what most electors that do not want to cast their vote for Trump, ARE AFRAID OF.......ending up dead....In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.
No, that's a Cinton modus operandi
so R electors who choose to vote their conscience and NOT vote for trump, are not in any risk of being shot or killed, or run out of town, huh?
Texas Republican elector says he won't cast vote for Trump
One resigned, another isn't voting for Trump, because TX laws don't mandate but leave it free to Electors.
===========
AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because "I am here to elect a president, not a king."
Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.
Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.
"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.
Suprun said the Electoral College system "is fine as it currently exists." His problem is just with its winner.
"I was told if we elected Donald Trump he would transform his personality into being presidential. He isn't," Suprun said. "I wanted him to be presidential, but since the election he hasn't grown into our institution, he's attacked them. I am here to elect a president, not a king."
Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump. Electors will vote to replace Sisneros when they convene Dec. 19 in Austin and in state capitals across the country to vote for president.
Suprun said he was not resigning but also won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.
"I am not sure of who I will vote for, but would have to strongly consider someone like (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together," he said.
Suprun said he was waiting to see if other electors will revolt and rally behind a Trump alternative like Kasich.
"I'm looking for someone we can all unify behind," he said.
Yo, is Hillary trying to payoff these electors? She has the money from the Clinton Foundation to start buying them off?
"GTP"
View attachment 101119
How can they do that, when Texas does not have BOUND electors?From a Texas relative: The Texas Republican Party has stated that if Suprun persists in his plan to not vote for Trump, they are going to replace him.
Dear oreo Where Trump uses or abuses his executive power of office, of course other people on left and right can take action to stop him.Texas Republican elector says he won't cast vote for Trump
One resigned, another isn't voting for Trump, because TX laws don't mandate but leave it free to Electors.
===========
AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because "I am here to elect a president, not a king."
Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.
Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.
"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.
Suprun said the Electoral College system "is fine as it currently exists." His problem is just with its winner.
"I was told if we elected Donald Trump he would transform his personality into being presidential. He isn't," Suprun said. "I wanted him to be presidential, but since the election he hasn't grown into our institution, he's attacked them. I am here to elect a president, not a king."
Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump. Electors will vote to replace Sisneros when they convene Dec. 19 in Austin and in state capitals across the country to vote for president.
Suprun said he was not resigning but also won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.
"I am not sure of who I will vote for, but would have to strongly consider someone like (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together," he said.
Suprun said he was waiting to see if other electors will revolt and rally behind a Trump alternative like Kasich.
"I'm looking for someone we can all unify behind," he said.
Yo, is Hillary trying to payoff these electors? She has the money from the Clinton Foundation to start buying them off?
"GTP"
View attachment 101119
I doubt Hillary could change any Republican elector's mind about supporting Trump--LOL. This one is on Trump. I think a lot of Republicans that voted for Trump thought that others would be able to control him, or convince him to change his ways, and that has proved unsuccessful. In the last 3 weeks he has gone completely bizerk with his tweety fingers & mouth and has done a complete 180 degree against solid conservative principles.
1. Threatening American corporations with a 35% penalty tax.
2. Tariffs
3. Tweeting a world wide message out against an American corporation (Boeing) to cancel a contract with them, citing their planes are too expensive.
4. Tonight tweeting out another attack on an American citizen, who happens to be a union leader for steel workers, who politely stated that Trump was wrong on the amount of jobs that were saved in Indiana.
5. Today, going on the Today show, to complain about Saturday Night Live.
This is not a President--who does these kinds of things.
This is not a conservative, or an emotionally stable President--this is insanity. I don't blame them at all for questioning their electoral college votes.
He can't vote for Kasich. Kasich wasn't on the ballot. This idiot is just blowing a lot of hot air.Texas Republican elector says he won't cast vote for Trump
One resigned, another isn't voting for Trump, because TX laws don't mandate but leave it free to Electors.
===========
AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because "I am here to elect a president, not a king."
Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.
Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.
"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.
Suprun said the Electoral College system "is fine as it currently exists." His problem is just with its winner.
"I was told if we elected Donald Trump he would transform his personality into being presidential. He isn't," Suprun said. "I wanted him to be presidential, but since the election he hasn't grown into our institution, he's attacked them. I am here to elect a president, not a king."
Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump. Electors will vote to replace Sisneros when they convene Dec. 19 in Austin and in state capitals across the country to vote for president.
Suprun said he was not resigning but also won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.
"I am not sure of who I will vote for, but would have to strongly consider someone like (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together," he said.
Suprun said he was waiting to see if other electors will revolt and rally behind a Trump alternative like Kasich.
"I'm looking for someone we can all unify behind," he said.
==================
Here's the guy I would still support for President:
voteforvern.com | take America back
I can attest he can work with prochoice progressive Democrats because I am one.
And he argues, but tolerates and includes my views where we stick to the Constitution.
He is biased toward prolife, but will allow for prochoice where it doesn't impose proabortion.
He is a veteran and supports the idea of Trump donating his salary to create
Jobs for Vets to reform the VA and other institutions that need massive overhaul!
Obviiosly, if the law allows, a recalcitrant elector can be replaced.How can they do that, when Texas does not have BOUND electors?From a Texas relative: The Texas Republican Party has stated that if Suprun persists in his plan to not vote for Trump, they are going to replace him.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.Will be interesting.
Under elector responsibilities -
Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.
It's predictable that there's no link to this since it's completely incoherent.
There is no way the Constitution would "require that electors be completely free to act as they choose". Constitutions are not written in negatives.. That's absurd. The reality is, and this has been tested and affirmed in SCOTUS, that all the Constitution requires is that the several states choose their allotted number of electors and then transmit their votes to the Congress. Exactly how they choose those electors and exactly how they vote, is completely up to the state. The Constitution says nothing about what it "doesn't-not-require", nor should it.
The guy is being an asshole. WHY? Because he can.In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.
So much for pogo's little temper tantrum and wishful thinking.U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?
Will be interesting.
Under elector responsibilities -
Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.
It's predictable that there's no link to this since it's completely incoherent.
There is no way the Constitution would "require that electors be completely free to act as they choose". Constitutions are not written in negatives.. That's absurd. The reality is, and this has been tested and affirmed in SCOTUS, that all the Constitution requires is that the several states choose their allotted number of electors and then transmit their votes to the Congress. Exactly how they choose those electors and exactly how they vote, is completely up to the state. The Constitution says nothing about what it "doesn't-not-require", nor should it.
And as it appears, he will be removed and replaced. So much for his little crusade.As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.
