Electoral College Voter Says He Will Not Vote For Hillary Clinton Even If She Wins His State

JustAnotherNut

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
3,712
Points
430
There may be hope for this state after all...I can respect Satiacum for standing up for what he believes in even if it's against the accepted norm.


1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

One of Washington state’s Democratic presidential electors is vowing not to cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton — even if she wins the state handily on Election Day. Another elector says he is considering withholding his vote.

“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Robert Satiacum, a member of Washington’s Puyallup Tribe who had supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

He had earlier told various media outlets he was wrestling with whether his conscience would allow him to support Clinton and was considering stepping aside for an alternate elector. But on Friday, he sounded firm, even if the election is close.

Bret Chiafalo, a Democratic elector from Everett who is also a Sanders supporter, said he is considering exercising his right to be a “conscientious elector” and vote for the person he believes would be the best president.

“I have no specific plans, but I have not ruled out that possibility,” he said.

Satiacum is more adamant.

Speaking with The Seattle Times by phone from the site of protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, he said he did not trust Clinton on tribal or environmental issues, and expressed anger that the Obama administration has not halted the project. The Associated Press first reported his decision Friday.

Satiacum, 56, was picked as one of 12 Democratic electors at Washington’s Democratic Party convention this year in Tacoma — a gathering dominated by supporters of Sanders, who won the state’s caucuses in March.

While voters will cast the final ballots for presidential candidates Tuesday, the election is actually decided by 538 electors from the various states — with 270 needed to win. In all but two states, the winner of the popular vote is supposed to receive all of the state’s electors.

If no presidential candidate were to reach 270 electoral votes, the election would be thrown to the U.S. House of Representatives, which would pick from the top three electoral-college vote-getters.

The electors meet Dec. 19 at state capitols to cast the Electoral College ballots. There is no constitutional requirement they follow their states’ popular votes, but so-called “faithless electors” are a rarity and have never decided an election.

In Washington state, there is a $1,000 fine for electors who do not honor the election results.

Satiacum said that fine doesn’t bother him and that he could not face his six children and 10 grandchildren if he cast a vote for Clinton. He was also critical of Republican Donald Trump and said he doesn’t know what he’ll do with his vote.
Chiafalo, 37, said he believes state laws that impose fines or other punishments for electors who do not follow the popular vote are unconstitutional.

He plans to create a website to educate electors from all political parties about their rights. The point is to raise awareness about the Electoral College.

“I don’t think it’s anyone’s intention to try to do something crazy just to mix things up,” he said.

Chiafalo said he believes the U.S. should ditch the Electoral College system because it is outdated in a modern society, “but as long as it is the law of the land we need to be honest about it and respect it.”

Washington has seen a renegade elector before. In 1976, Mike Padden, now a state senator, cast his electoral-college vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the incumbent, who carried the state and already had defeated Reagan in the primaries.

Satiacum said he has been pressured by national tribal leaders and others to abide by the results of the vote in Washington state, where polls show Clinton has a wide lead over Trump.

He said he’s heard from a few other national Democratic electors who are considering joining him.

“We are looking down off the cliff. As humanity we are there. We cannot go four more years with either of these idiots,” he said.

The Puyallup Tribe is a major backer of Democrats and one of the state’s largest contributors to the Clinton campaign, having donated more than $460,000 to the Clinton Victory Fund.

Clinton visited the Puyallup reservation in March while campaigning ahead of the state’s caucuses. During a meeting with tribal leaders, she received a traditional blanket and an honorary Indian name meaning “strong woman.”

In a statement last month, the Puyallup Tribal Council distanced itself from Satiacum. While saying the tribe supported the “personal convictions” of Satiacum, the statement noted that as an elector he had pledged to cast his vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

Satiacum “risks dishonoring himself” by not fulfilling that duty, the council’s statement said.
 

Stratford57

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
8,429
Reaction score
8,250
Points
2,255
Location
Kievan Rus'
There may be hope for this state after all...I can respect Satiacum for standing up for what he believes in even if it's against the accepted norm.


1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

One of Washington state’s Democratic presidential electors is vowing not to cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton — even if she wins the state handily on Election Day. Another elector says he is considering withholding his vote.

“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Robert Satiacum, a member of Washington’s Puyallup Tribe who had supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

He had earlier told various media outlets he was wrestling with whether his conscience would allow him to support Clinton and was considering stepping aside for an alternate elector. But on Friday, he sounded firm, even if the election is close.

Bret Chiafalo, a Democratic elector from Everett who is also a Sanders supporter, said he is considering exercising his right to be a “conscientious elector” and vote for the person he believes would be the best president.

“I have no specific plans, but I have not ruled out that possibility,” he said.

Satiacum is more adamant.

Speaking with The Seattle Times by phone from the site of protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, he said he did not trust Clinton on tribal or environmental issues, and expressed anger that the Obama administration has not halted the project. The Associated Press first reported his decision Friday.

Satiacum, 56, was picked as one of 12 Democratic electors at Washington’s Democratic Party convention this year in Tacoma — a gathering dominated by supporters of Sanders, who won the state’s caucuses in March.

While voters will cast the final ballots for presidential candidates Tuesday, the election is actually decided by 538 electors from the various states — with 270 needed to win. In all but two states, the winner of the popular vote is supposed to receive all of the state’s electors.

If no presidential candidate were to reach 270 electoral votes, the election would be thrown to the U.S. House of Representatives, which would pick from the top three electoral-college vote-getters.

The electors meet Dec. 19 at state capitols to cast the Electoral College ballots. There is no constitutional requirement they follow their states’ popular votes, but so-called “faithless electors” are a rarity and have never decided an election.

In Washington state, there is a $1,000 fine for electors who do not honor the election results.

Satiacum said that fine doesn’t bother him and that he could not face his six children and 10 grandchildren if he cast a vote for Clinton. He was also critical of Republican Donald Trump and said he doesn’t know what he’ll do with his vote.
Chiafalo, 37, said he believes state laws that impose fines or other punishments for electors who do not follow the popular vote are unconstitutional.

He plans to create a website to educate electors from all political parties about their rights. The point is to raise awareness about the Electoral College.

“I don’t think it’s anyone’s intention to try to do something crazy just to mix things up,” he said.

Chiafalo said he believes the U.S. should ditch the Electoral College system because it is outdated in a modern society, “but as long as it is the law of the land we need to be honest about it and respect it.”

Washington has seen a renegade elector before. In 1976, Mike Padden, now a state senator, cast his electoral-college vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the incumbent, who carried the state and already had defeated Reagan in the primaries.

Satiacum said he has been pressured by national tribal leaders and others to abide by the results of the vote in Washington state, where polls show Clinton has a wide lead over Trump.

He said he’s heard from a few other national Democratic electors who are considering joining him.

“We are looking down off the cliff. As humanity we are there. We cannot go four more years with either of these idiots,” he said.

The Puyallup Tribe is a major backer of Democrats and one of the state’s largest contributors to the Clinton campaign, having donated more than $460,000 to the Clinton Victory Fund.

Clinton visited the Puyallup reservation in March while campaigning ahead of the state’s caucuses. During a meeting with tribal leaders, she received a traditional blanket and an honorary Indian name meaning “strong woman.”

In a statement last month, the Puyallup Tribal Council distanced itself from Satiacum. While saying the tribe supported the “personal convictions” of Satiacum, the statement noted that as an elector he had pledged to cast his vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

Satiacum “risks dishonoring himself” by not fulfilling that duty, the council’s statement said.
Let's hope, he won't "commit suicide" before he actually has to vote.
 

IsaacNewton

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
17,309
Reaction score
3,662
Points
290
Like frogs in pan of water that heats up very slowly people don't realize we are moving towards the end of the democracy. Even though it seems to be a steadfast institution it won't take much of this and Trump's yammering how he won't accept the results of an election to undermine the process. And in the end the personalities are of little consequence. The process is what holds it together.

It's like watching various farmers fighting over water rights to a river until finally a few decide they'll go up stream to where it begins and poison the whole river.

Edit: And by the way, until something is written in stone it isn't written in stone. Democracies die generally by a thousand cuts, and there are many wielding knives right now.
 
Last edited:

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,117
Reaction score
10,998
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
The way things are going a couple of EC votes could change the election.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,773
Reaction score
5,912
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
"I know the Nazis are bad, but the Social Democrats aren't perfect on my pet issue, so I'm not going to support them against the Nazis."

Lord save us from such oh-so-pure narcissists, the ones who think the world revolves around their own sense of perfect purity.
 
Last edited:

IsaacNewton

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
17,309
Reaction score
3,662
Points
290
Like frogs in pan of water that heats up very slowly people don't realize we are moving towards the end of the democracy. Even though it seems to be a steadfast institution it won't take much of this and Trump's yammering how he won't accept the results of an election to undermine the process. And in the end the personalities are of little consequence. The process is what holds it together.

It's like watching various farmers fighting over water rights to a river until finally a few decide they'll go up stream to where it begins and poison the whole river.
You're like the guy in the padded cell and straight jacket thrashing around screaming about "them".
Your mind goes straight to panic mode and arm flailing. You either need to address the OP or refrain from vomiting on threads.

An electoral voter stating they will ignore the vote of millions and do whatever suits their whim is the opposite of democracy. It is what Putin does.
 

cereal_killer

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
3,106
Points
420
Location
Austin
Got to be honest. I respect his opinion and what he wants to do BUT he needs to do the right thing and honor the election results.
 

Blackrook

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
19,302
Reaction score
7,866
Points
390
The electors are under no obligation to honor the results of the popular election. The Founding Fathers set it up that way purposely as a last bulwark in case the American people elect a tyrant.
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,061
Points
1,130
There may be hope for this state after all...I can respect Satiacum for standing up for what he believes in even if it's against the accepted norm.


1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

One of Washington state’s Democratic presidential electors is vowing not to cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton — even if she wins the state handily on Election Day. Another elector says he is considering withholding his vote.

“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Robert Satiacum, a member of Washington’s Puyallup Tribe who had supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

He had earlier told various media outlets he was wrestling with whether his conscience would allow him to support Clinton and was considering stepping aside for an alternate elector. But on Friday, he sounded firm, even if the election is close.

Bret Chiafalo, a Democratic elector from Everett who is also a Sanders supporter, said he is considering exercising his right to be a “conscientious elector” and vote for the person he believes would be the best president.

“I have no specific plans, but I have not ruled out that possibility,” he said.

Satiacum is more adamant.

Speaking with The Seattle Times by phone from the site of protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, he said he did not trust Clinton on tribal or environmental issues, and expressed anger that the Obama administration has not halted the project. The Associated Press first reported his decision Friday.

Satiacum, 56, was picked as one of 12 Democratic electors at Washington’s Democratic Party convention this year in Tacoma — a gathering dominated by supporters of Sanders, who won the state’s caucuses in March.

While voters will cast the final ballots for presidential candidates Tuesday, the election is actually decided by 538 electors from the various states — with 270 needed to win. In all but two states, the winner of the popular vote is supposed to receive all of the state’s electors.

If no presidential candidate were to reach 270 electoral votes, the election would be thrown to the U.S. House of Representatives, which would pick from the top three electoral-college vote-getters.

The electors meet Dec. 19 at state capitols to cast the Electoral College ballots. There is no constitutional requirement they follow their states’ popular votes, but so-called “faithless electors” are a rarity and have never decided an election.

In Washington state, there is a $1,000 fine for electors who do not honor the election results.

Satiacum said that fine doesn’t bother him and that he could not face his six children and 10 grandchildren if he cast a vote for Clinton. He was also critical of Republican Donald Trump and said he doesn’t know what he’ll do with his vote.
Chiafalo, 37, said he believes state laws that impose fines or other punishments for electors who do not follow the popular vote are unconstitutional.

He plans to create a website to educate electors from all political parties about their rights. The point is to raise awareness about the Electoral College.

“I don’t think it’s anyone’s intention to try to do something crazy just to mix things up,” he said.

Chiafalo said he believes the U.S. should ditch the Electoral College system because it is outdated in a modern society, “but as long as it is the law of the land we need to be honest about it and respect it.”

Washington has seen a renegade elector before. In 1976, Mike Padden, now a state senator, cast his electoral-college vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the incumbent, who carried the state and already had defeated Reagan in the primaries.

Satiacum said he has been pressured by national tribal leaders and others to abide by the results of the vote in Washington state, where polls show Clinton has a wide lead over Trump.

He said he’s heard from a few other national Democratic electors who are considering joining him.

“We are looking down off the cliff. As humanity we are there. We cannot go four more years with either of these idiots,” he said.

The Puyallup Tribe is a major backer of Democrats and one of the state’s largest contributors to the Clinton campaign, having donated more than $460,000 to the Clinton Victory Fund.

Clinton visited the Puyallup reservation in March while campaigning ahead of the state’s caucuses. During a meeting with tribal leaders, she received a traditional blanket and an honorary Indian name meaning “strong woman.”

In a statement last month, the Puyallup Tribal Council distanced itself from Satiacum. While saying the tribe supported the “personal convictions” of Satiacum, the statement noted that as an elector he had pledged to cast his vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

Satiacum “risks dishonoring himself” by not fulfilling that duty, the council’s statement said.
As much as I dislike Hillary in my opinion that just wouldn't be right. If he does it there is no telling the reaction of the far left. It might throw the whole country into riot. But then again I doubt he will do it.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,342
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
There may be hope for this state after all...I can respect Satiacum for standing up for what he believes in even if it's against the accepted norm.


1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t commit

One of Washington state’s Democratic presidential electors is vowing not to cast his Electoral College vote for Hillary Clinton — even if she wins the state handily on Election Day. Another elector says he is considering withholding his vote.

“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Robert Satiacum, a member of Washington’s Puyallup Tribe who had supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

He had earlier told various media outlets he was wrestling with whether his conscience would allow him to support Clinton and was considering stepping aside for an alternate elector. But on Friday, he sounded firm, even if the election is close.

Bret Chiafalo, a Democratic elector from Everett who is also a Sanders supporter, said he is considering exercising his right to be a “conscientious elector” and vote for the person he believes would be the best president.

“I have no specific plans, but I have not ruled out that possibility,” he said.

Satiacum is more adamant.

Speaking with The Seattle Times by phone from the site of protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, he said he did not trust Clinton on tribal or environmental issues, and expressed anger that the Obama administration has not halted the project. The Associated Press first reported his decision Friday.

Satiacum, 56, was picked as one of 12 Democratic electors at Washington’s Democratic Party convention this year in Tacoma — a gathering dominated by supporters of Sanders, who won the state’s caucuses in March.

While voters will cast the final ballots for presidential candidates Tuesday, the election is actually decided by 538 electors from the various states — with 270 needed to win. In all but two states, the winner of the popular vote is supposed to receive all of the state’s electors.

If no presidential candidate were to reach 270 electoral votes, the election would be thrown to the U.S. House of Representatives, which would pick from the top three electoral-college vote-getters.

The electors meet Dec. 19 at state capitols to cast the Electoral College ballots. There is no constitutional requirement they follow their states’ popular votes, but so-called “faithless electors” are a rarity and have never decided an election.

In Washington state, there is a $1,000 fine for electors who do not honor the election results.

Satiacum said that fine doesn’t bother him and that he could not face his six children and 10 grandchildren if he cast a vote for Clinton. He was also critical of Republican Donald Trump and said he doesn’t know what he’ll do with his vote.
Chiafalo, 37, said he believes state laws that impose fines or other punishments for electors who do not follow the popular vote are unconstitutional.

He plans to create a website to educate electors from all political parties about their rights. The point is to raise awareness about the Electoral College.

“I don’t think it’s anyone’s intention to try to do something crazy just to mix things up,” he said.

Chiafalo said he believes the U.S. should ditch the Electoral College system because it is outdated in a modern society, “but as long as it is the law of the land we need to be honest about it and respect it.”

Washington has seen a renegade elector before. In 1976, Mike Padden, now a state senator, cast his electoral-college vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the incumbent, who carried the state and already had defeated Reagan in the primaries.

Satiacum said he has been pressured by national tribal leaders and others to abide by the results of the vote in Washington state, where polls show Clinton has a wide lead over Trump.

He said he’s heard from a few other national Democratic electors who are considering joining him.

“We are looking down off the cliff. As humanity we are there. We cannot go four more years with either of these idiots,” he said.

The Puyallup Tribe is a major backer of Democrats and one of the state’s largest contributors to the Clinton campaign, having donated more than $460,000 to the Clinton Victory Fund.

Clinton visited the Puyallup reservation in March while campaigning ahead of the state’s caucuses. During a meeting with tribal leaders, she received a traditional blanket and an honorary Indian name meaning “strong woman.”

In a statement last month, the Puyallup Tribal Council distanced itself from Satiacum. While saying the tribe supported the “personal convictions” of Satiacum, the statement noted that as an elector he had pledged to cast his vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

Satiacum “risks dishonoring himself” by not fulfilling that duty, the council’s statement said.
Thanks for posting this JustAnotherNut
My guess is that he will opt to step aside, give his seat to an alternate,
and take a donation from the Clinton Foundation to help his tribe, explaining that is why he resigned.
To avoid appearance of a conflict of interest!
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
53,081
Reaction score
17,696
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Got to be honest. I respect his opinion and what he wants to do BUT he needs to do the right thing and honor the election results.
In most states, electors are not obligated to vote the way their state does. In the 2004 election, one of Kerry's electors in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards.
 
OP
JustAnotherNut

JustAnotherNut

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
3,712
Points
430
It's true that if he changes his position as an elected electorate to represent the Democrats of his peers, he should probably hand over to another that would represent them.
In his defense, he had accepted his position in this manner when the state was for Sanders. With all the controversies & revelations over Clinton, he can no longer support the party.

From a more personal view.....it's tough being on the West Coast during an election year and actually believing in the theory that our votes actually count when most elections are already called long before ours have been cast. And I don't believe the electoral vote or college is truly a fair representative of the people and should be done away with. How does a person's vote get counted when they live in a politically defined state and they vote otherwise? It doesn't.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
If no one gets 270, you may see alot of this
 

cereal_killer

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
3,106
Points
420
Location
Austin
Got to be honest. I respect his opinion and what he wants to do BUT he needs to do the right thing and honor the election results.
In most states, electors are not obligated to vote the way their state does. In the 2004 election, one of Kerry's electors in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards.
Didn't know that. Then they should be done away with. Whats the point? It's like the Super Delegates all over again.

I mean the EC favors the Dems without a vote even being cast, but i think if its in place it should require them to cast their vote for who the American people voted for.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,342
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
It's true that if he changes his position as an elected electorate to represent the Democrats of his peers, he should probably hand over to another that would represent them.
In his defense, he had accepted his position in this manner when the state was for Sanders. With all the controversies & revelations over Clinton, he can no longer support the party.

From a more personal view.....it's tough being on the West Coast during an election year and actually believing in the theory that our votes actually count when most elections are already called long before ours have been cast. And I don't believe the electoral vote or college is truly a fair representative of the people and should be done away with. How does a person's vote get counted when they live in a politically defined state and they vote otherwise? It doesn't.
Dear JustAnotherNut
I support the Greens idea of proportional representation.
I think there must be some way to use political parties like states, and allow equal representation from them
like a Senate, while letting each party govern their own membership under their own democratically elected structure and policies.

Also if you look up vote swap sites and apps. People have set up matching sites
so third party candidates can still collect popular votes while not risking the loss of electoral votes
for candidates they prefer over the other.

I think we are heading for means of separating social programs and policies by party,
using those structures to train leaders in govt management by handling their own resources and reps,
and even dividing the federal offices into internal and external positions,
so we could go back to the days of electing leaders from both parties instead of taking turns
competing for the same office.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Like frogs in pan of water that heats up very slowly people don't realize we are moving towards the end of the democracy. Even though it seems to be a steadfast institution it won't take much of this and Trump's yammering how he won't accept the results of an election to undermine the process. And in the end the personalities are of little consequence. The process is what holds it together.

It's like watching various farmers fighting over water rights to a river until finally a few decide they'll go up stream to where it begins and poison the whole river.
Dude... Democracy is what got us these two candidates.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,342
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Got to be honest. I respect his opinion and what he wants to do BUT he needs to do the right thing and honor the election results.
In most states, electors are not obligated to vote the way their state does. In the 2004 election, one of Kerry's electors in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards.
Hmmm don't Taz Me Bro
What if we mapped out how to get a 50/50 tie where the Electors who can switch their votes do,
and others don't vote if necessary, to get it to come out even or close to it.
Then ask the House to vote for both Clinton and Trump to be President and Vice President.

As VP Trump works with all the Senators of each state to reorganize and refinance
federal and state programs, where people of each state either AGREE
what belongs on a federal level or what to revert back to a state level.

Some Libertarians propose only delegating the money from federal to state,
and then letting states decide the regulations and terms. (also the Greens have proposed
proportional representation by party and they use consensus decision making instead of majority rule,
so I would recommend borrowing ideas from these models to include representation from people of all parties)

Contested programs such as health care and marriage benefits can also be kept on a national level by shifting it to their party, if they can't agree any other way on the terms conditions and regulations. The advantages of going private is taxpayers get taxbreaks for investing in programs they take back and manage themselves instead of running through govt, and if they manage it through their own party they don't fight opposition from outside parties to get their way.
 
OP
JustAnotherNut

JustAnotherNut

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
3,712
Points
430
And yet a true Democracy is by the vote of the people.....all of the people & not just by a selected few
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top