Un-Reliable Electoral Vote Rep now unsure who HE is going to vote for

[easyt65]

Just like every other citizen in the United States, the men and women entrusted with casting their electoral college votes once the election is over and the new President has been elected by the people these representatives - entrusted with representing the will of the people - have only one vote to cast during the election - THEIR OWN.

Once the election is over, however, they hold the very will of the people in their hands - EVERYONE'S vote and the final decision of that's state's majority decision. Those votes - that will of the people they are entrusted with - is NOT theirs to alter, to ignore. They have been entrusted to represent the will of the people and cast the electoral vote as the people have decided.

Yet that's not what's happening in Texas

"Texas elector Christopher Suprun revealed what the last straw was that lead him to publicly announce his decision not to cast his ballot for President-elect Donald Trump, even though Trump was the clear choice of Texan voters in last month’s election.


Now, Suprun isn’t not sure who he’s voting for now that John Kasich has asked rogue electors not to cast their votes for him. What he does know is he’s not voting for Hillary Clinton. Suprun said he’s looking for someone who can “unite the party.”


So the entire state of Texas' votes are being held hostage, their majority will kidnapped and it's fate hanging in the balance of a man who suddenly believes he has been given a 'do-over', the power to choose to vote a different way in this election, not just for himself, though, but for every citizen of Texas who has exercised their right to vote so that their vote may count.

Supurn has the ability to prevent their vote from counting, based on who HE personally finally decides to cast his electoral vote for.

Is it just me, or is that 'f*ed up'?

Those votes, that decision made, is not - SHOULD NOT - be his to alter. His position should be nothing more than an honorary position, much like someone chosen to carry the flag out in the opening ceremony of a rodeo or someone chosen to carry out the coin to be used in a coin flip at the start of a football game, not decide who is going to win or not.

This is just one of the many things about parts of our system of government that makes me scratch my head, one that is especially pertinent now.

Exclusive: ‘Faithless Elector’ Now Blames Mike Pence For Vote Switch

 

[TheOldSchool]

Haven't you heard easy? We must not doubt or question the electoral college. Isn't that what you all have been saying since Nov. 8?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sounds like he's an attention ho

 

[saveliberty]

Oh he'll draw attention alright.

 

[tinydancer]

Idiot is upset about Trump's tweets about SNL.

 

[tinydancer]

Haven't you heard easy? We must not doubt or question the electoral college. Isn't that what you all have been saying since Nov. 8?

He signed a pledge that he would vote the will of the State. He most certainly is a Faithless Elector. Oh and a scumbucket.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Haven't you heard easy? We must not doubt or question the electoral college. Isn't that what you all have been saying since Nov. 8?

He signed a pledge that he would vote the will of the State. He most certainly is a Faithless Elector. Oh and a scumbucket.

Did he? The founders would have hated such a pledge.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Publish his name, address, SSN and phone number. Texas will take care of the rest...

 

[saveliberty]

Does moral bankruptcy last tens years? Maybe he will just file for a reorganization?

 

[tinydancer]

Haven't you heard easy? We must not doubt or question the electoral college. Isn't that what you all have been saying since Nov. 8?

He signed a pledge that he would vote the will of the State. He most certainly is a Faithless Elector. Oh and a scumbucket.

Did he? The founders would have hated such a pledge.

Not at all.

"In the seminal decision of Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court made clear electors act at the privilege of the state that empowers them, and do NOT enjoy any special right to vote as they please.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the Alabama state supreme court, and rejected the idea that an elector had any Constitutionally protected right to vote in the electoral college as he or she chose.

Electors only “act by authority of the state.” Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. at 224 (1952). The Constitution itself gives such power to the states without restriction or restraint. “

Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment forbids a party to require from candidates in its primary a pledge of political conformity with the aims of the party.”

The “suggestion” of some “assumed” elector choice to ignore the state’s limitations on his office was “impossible to accept” as some intention of the founders. As the court noted: “history teaches” just the opposite, as electors “were expected to support the party nominees.”.

Indeed, the Supreme Court labeled such faithless electors a “fraudulent invasion” for a reason."

More at link:

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

 

[TheOldSchool]

Haven't you heard easy? We must not doubt or question the electoral college. Isn't that what you all have been saying since Nov. 8?

He signed a pledge that he would vote the will of the State. He most certainly is a Faithless Elector. Oh and a scumbucket.

Did he? The founders would have hated such a pledge.

Not at all.

"In the seminal decision of Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court made clear electors act at the privilege of the state that empowers them, and do NOT enjoy any special right to vote as they please.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the Alabama state supreme court, and rejected the idea that an elector had any Constitutionally protected right to vote in the electoral college as he or she chose.

Electors only “act by authority of the state.” Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. at 224 (1952). The Constitution itself gives such power to the states without restriction or restraint. “

Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment forbids a party to require from candidates in its primary a pledge of political conformity with the aims of the party.”

The “suggestion” of some “assumed” elector choice to ignore the state’s limitations on his office was “impossible to accept” as some intention of the founders. As the court noted: “history teaches” just the opposite, as electors “were expected to support the party nominees.”.

Indeed, the Supreme Court labeled such faithless electors a “fraudulent invasion” for a reason."

More at link:

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

Yet this guy can vote however he wants. Hmm.

 

[tinydancer]

Haven't you heard easy? We must not doubt or question the electoral college. Isn't that what you all have been saying since Nov. 8?

He signed a pledge that he would vote the will of the State. He most certainly is a Faithless Elector. Oh and a scumbucket.

Did he? The founders would have hated such a pledge.

Not at all.

"In the seminal decision of Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court made clear electors act at the privilege of the state that empowers them, and do NOT enjoy any special right to vote as they please.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the Alabama state supreme court, and rejected the idea that an elector had any Constitutionally protected right to vote in the electoral college as he or she chose.

Electors only “act by authority of the state.” Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. at 224 (1952). The Constitution itself gives such power to the states without restriction or restraint. “

Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment forbids a party to require from candidates in its primary a pledge of political conformity with the aims of the party.”

The “suggestion” of some “assumed” elector choice to ignore the state’s limitations on his office was “impossible to accept” as some intention of the founders. As the court noted: “history teaches” just the opposite, as electors “were expected to support the party nominees.”.

Indeed, the Supreme Court labeled such faithless electors a “fraudulent invasion” for a reason."

More at link:

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

Yet this guy can vote however he wants. Hmm.

I'm waiting to see what action the Texas Republican Party is going to take. This will be most interesting to be sure.

 

[saveliberty]

Not sure why the Texas elector is even an issue. They have alternate electors should someone be unable to perform their duty. This gentleman clearly will not do so. Replace him.