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

about as significant as a mosquito on an elephant's ass.

experience with that?

Yep--it's not rocket science. People who cast the electoral college votes are similar to people who hand out ribbons after a T-ball game, or on a high school track field. IOW--Ceremony only. They aren't the judgement callers, nor can they change the outcome of an election.

The Secretary of State is the one who certifies the vote and has the power to ask for a recount in close election, and he/she would quickly replace any protest ceremony idiots.

And as you'll note in Washington all Electoral College participants signed a pledge to support and vote for the Democrat nominee.
U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

Gee thanks for sharing, but not what I was implying


You posted an entire thread here, on someone who may make a protest--who has signed a PLEDGE--to vote for the winner. If they don't they're fined $1000.00, and over ruled anyway by the Secretary of State, and will most certainly lose their state house seat in the process.

An electoral college participant cannot overrule the outcome of the majority popular vote.

So what's the point of this thread?

If there were enough faithless voters in an election, it could change the outcome of an election. It hasn't happened yet, although in 1836 all 23 electors from Virginia refused to vote for the Democratic vice presidential candidate, which kept him from getting the majority needed. It went to the Senate and they voted to have that candidate, Richard Johnson, become vice president anyway.

You can read about it here : How a ‘faithless elector’ in Georgia could cost Donald Trump an electoral college vote

So, while relatively rare, it is possible for faithless electors to change which candidate becomes president.
 
In 2000 Gore won the popular vote. If people had chosen to ignore the Electoral College and voted for Gore instead of Bush, Gore would have also won the Electoral College vote, and these people would be screaming their heads off.


They are just a bunch of dyed in the wool hypocrites. They don't care about anything but having their way. HYPOCRITES.

Thank God people were not that stupid.
Total partisanship. They would not have been stupid. GW Bush ruined this country. And the same will happen if Trump is elected, only 10 times worse. Even GW and his whole family know what an asshole Trump is and how much damage he would do to this country.
 
In 2000 Gore won the popular vote. If people had chosen to ignore the Electoral College and voted for Gore instead of Bush, Gore would have also won the Electoral College vote, and these people would be screaming their heads off.


They are just a bunch of dyed in the wool hypocrites. They don't care about anything but having their way. HYPOCRITES.

Thank God people were not that stupid.


Typically Electoral college participants are selected from the State house of Representatives--either Democrat or Republican to represent both parties. In Washington they are required to sign a PLEDGE to support the winner, either be it the Democrat or Republican. Again it's just a ceremony--and anyone trying to make a protest vote would immediately be overturned by the Secretary of State. They would make an idiot out of themselves while also paying a $1000 fine if they tried anything--LOL Then the odds of them winning their own state seats back would be zero to none, so it's not going to happen.

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

Apparently the states that have laws against faithless electors don't enforce them. The Supreme Court has ruled that electors can be made to pledge their vote, but not that they must vote a particular way. Nor has the USSC ruled on whether laws against faithless electors are constitutional.

"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. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged."
U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?
 
In 2000 Gore won the popular vote. If people had chosen to ignore the Electoral College and voted for Gore instead of Bush, Gore would have also won the Electoral College vote, and these people would be screaming their heads off.


They are just a bunch of dyed in the wool hypocrites. They don't care about anything but having their way. HYPOCRITES.

Thank God people were not that stupid.
Total partisanship. They would not have been stupid. GW Bush ruined this country. And the same will happen if Trump is elected, only 10 times worse. Even GW and his whole family know what an asshole Trump is and how much damage he would do to this country.

Is the country a ruin? Or, wait, did Obama fix the "ruined" country?
 
In 2000 Gore won the popular vote. If people had chosen to ignore the Electoral College and voted for Gore instead of Bush, Gore would have also won the Electoral College vote, and these people would be screaming their heads off.


They are just a bunch of dyed in the wool hypocrites. They don't care about anything but having their way. HYPOCRITES.

Thank God people were not that stupid.
Total partisanship. They would not have been stupid. GW Bush ruined this country. And the same will happen if Trump is elected, only 10 times worse. Even GW and his whole family know what an asshole Trump is and how much damage he would do to this country.

Is the country a ruin? Or, wait, did Obama fix the "ruined" country?
Despite your partisan vision of reality, the actual truth is that Obama has recovered much of the damage Bush did. Bush nearly ruined this country: Obama has spent his entire tenure as president trying to repair the damage.
 
yeah, sure.... :rolleyes:

when the republican delegates wanted to vote their conscious....against Trump

Trump and Trumpsters said ''the system is rigged'' .... and changed the rules and denied them this option at the convention, and in various states that wanted to vote their conscious, Trump said the system was rigged....''I get the most votes, but they give the delegates to others'', ''the system is rigged'' CRUD from the Donald and supporters,

BUT NOW, it's A-OK

hypocrites to the nth degree!
 
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.

What? How does the electoral vote favor Dems? Let's start with 2000 and we can continue with why the fuck Wyoming gets the same number of votes as DC, please don't puss out on this.

Here's your chance...go....
18 states plus the District of Columbia have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1992 and 2012. Add them up and you get 242 electoral votes.

13 states have voted for the Republican presidential nominee in each of the past 6 electins. add them up and you get 102 EV's.

See it yet? The Democratic nominee starts with an EV lead of 140. What does that leave? The Dem nominee needs to find only 28 votes beyond that built in base to win the presidency.

Electoral College favors the Democrat nominee without a vote even being cast. I rest my case

Because half the red states have almost no population. Representation is for living people, not dirt.
people in over crowded areas are not living.
Representation should be for the living, not the existing
 
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.
You mean hitlery....

The republic gave us Trump.....
 
No because from the point of view of the democratic process, the Wyoming farmer needs as much chance at the election as a Manhattan worker, even if there are a lot more Manhattan workers than Wyoming farmers.

Nobody campaigns in New York thanks to the electoral college, what are you talking about? Hell, nobody campaigns in Wyoming either.

I'm not sure that having a direct democracy, without an electoral college would be any better.

Actually, that's not direct democracy, it's still representative. With an electoral college the only places candidates are going to campaign are battleground states, without the electoral college that unlocks the entire country.

You realize that the top 11 states have more people, than the rest of the states combined.

And? At least they would campaign where people live. Plus, statelines would no longer matter. Maybe Arizona isn't in the top 10 or 11 but Phoenix is one of the top 10 most populated cities and it's people are ignored, at least until the state became competitive. To be honest, there are fewer people in smaller states so yeah, they are going to receive less attention and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is as the video I posted demonstrates that it takes 3 Californians votes to equal someone from Wyoming with the electoral college and there is nothing fair about that.

In a direct democracy, the bottom 20 states combined, have a smaller number of voters than California, and about as many as Texas, and a tad more than New York.

Nobody is advocating for direct democracy. Nobody can win an election by only campaigning in California, New York and Texas as no states will vote as a monolith. Imagine Clinton flying from San Francisco > Reno > Salt Lake City and then onto Boise. Won't find that sort of diversity now.

Point being, a politicians would have no reason whatsoever to campaign in the vast majority of the country.

That's already happening and especially in those predetermined larger states where people live.

Why would anyone campaign in Wyoming under a direct democracy?

To be honest, they never will because nobody lives there but at least their votes are in proportion with everyone else. Then again, a side trip from Denver could take a candidate to Cheyenne as there is at least some amount of incentive to 20, 30 or even 40% of the vote rather than the winner take all thing we have now.

If you got the vote of every single registered legal voter in the state, it would be nothing. The electoral college can't possibly make campaigning there less worthwhile. If anything, it makes it more valuable.

It doesn't though, the electoral college disenfranchises people who don't vote with the majority of their state unless they live in a battle ground. There is virtually no reason for a Democrat to vote in Wyoming or the millions of Republicans in California to pull the lever for Trump as it changes nothing.

Well that part is true. Not that it matters. It's true that the electoral college does make it so your vote has no value if the majority of the state votes otherwise.

But think about the logic of that premise. In 2012, there were over 126,144,000 votes cast. By the exact same logic you just gave, 63,072,001 votes means the other 63,071,999 votes didn't matter. They have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the entire direction of the US government.

Let's go back and use California as an example. Republicans aren't voting for the President of California. Their vote is null and void, their vote means nothing in the end. Where as if we counted the popular vote then it comes down to everyone voting equally for President. There are always going to be winners and losers but at least everyone's vote should count the same. In smaller states their vote is worth more because fewer votes make up one electoral college delegate.

I was disenfranchised. Boo hoo.

Do you see my problem? I don't see that this will change anything. At best it will simply make the existing problem, all that more apparent. This is why historically all direct democracies have caved in on themselves.

This is exactly why the people who founded this country didn't want us voting on the president directly to begin with. Or the Senators, or Representatives.

Once again, voting for President and bypassing the electoral college and going with the popular vote is not the definition of direct democracy. Direct democracy is where citizens vote directly for bills instead of elect representatives to do that for them. You know, Congress.

The electoral college has nothing to do with saving the Republic.

Well in that case direct democracy is an immediate turf war. Like that between rival gangs of a city. Because if everyone has his own gang to write and ratify his own laws, then there will be uncountable number of laws all with uncertain jurisdictions. At some places this might be a good thing though, where collectivist leftist aggression has not yet succeeded, such as in Arizona and the likes.
 
Nobody campaigns in New York thanks to the electoral college, what are you talking about? Hell, nobody campaigns in Wyoming either.

I'm not sure that having a direct democracy, without an electoral college would be any better.

Actually, that's not direct democracy, it's still representative. With an electoral college the only places candidates are going to campaign are battleground states, without the electoral college that unlocks the entire country.

You realize that the top 11 states have more people, than the rest of the states combined.

And? At least they would campaign where people live. Plus, statelines would no longer matter. Maybe Arizona isn't in the top 10 or 11 but Phoenix is one of the top 10 most populated cities and it's people are ignored, at least until the state became competitive. To be honest, there are fewer people in smaller states so yeah, they are going to receive less attention and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is as the video I posted demonstrates that it takes 3 Californians votes to equal someone from Wyoming with the electoral college and there is nothing fair about that.

In a direct democracy, the bottom 20 states combined, have a smaller number of voters than California, and about as many as Texas, and a tad more than New York.

Nobody is advocating for direct democracy. Nobody can win an election by only campaigning in California, New York and Texas as no states will vote as a monolith. Imagine Clinton flying from San Francisco > Reno > Salt Lake City and then onto Boise. Won't find that sort of diversity now.

Point being, a politicians would have no reason whatsoever to campaign in the vast majority of the country.

That's already happening and especially in those predetermined larger states where people live.

Why would anyone campaign in Wyoming under a direct democracy?

To be honest, they never will because nobody lives there but at least their votes are in proportion with everyone else. Then again, a side trip from Denver could take a candidate to Cheyenne as there is at least some amount of incentive to 20, 30 or even 40% of the vote rather than the winner take all thing we have now.

If you got the vote of every single registered legal voter in the state, it would be nothing. The electoral college can't possibly make campaigning there less worthwhile. If anything, it makes it more valuable.

It doesn't though, the electoral college disenfranchises people who don't vote with the majority of their state unless they live in a battle ground. There is virtually no reason for a Democrat to vote in Wyoming or the millions of Republicans in California to pull the lever for Trump as it changes nothing.

Well that part is true. Not that it matters. It's true that the electoral college does make it so your vote has no value if the majority of the state votes otherwise.

But think about the logic of that premise. In 2012, there were over 126,144,000 votes cast. By the exact same logic you just gave, 63,072,001 votes means the other 63,071,999 votes didn't matter. They have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the entire direction of the US government.

Let's go back and use California as an example. Republicans aren't voting for the President of California. Their vote is null and void, their vote means nothing in the end. Where as if we counted the popular vote then it comes down to everyone voting equally for President. There are always going to be winners and losers but at least everyone's vote should count the same. In smaller states their vote is worth more because fewer votes make up one electoral college delegate.

I was disenfranchised. Boo hoo.

Do you see my problem? I don't see that this will change anything. At best it will simply make the existing problem, all that more apparent. This is why historically all direct democracies have caved in on themselves.

This is exactly why the people who founded this country didn't want us voting on the president directly to begin with. Or the Senators, or Representatives.

Once again, voting for President and bypassing the electoral college and going with the popular vote is not the definition of direct democracy. Direct democracy is where citizens vote directly for bills instead of elect representatives to do that for them. You know, Congress.

The electoral college has nothing to do with saving the Republic.

Well in that case direct democracy is an immediate turf war. Like that between rival gangs of a city. Because if everyone has his own gang to write and ratify his own laws, then there will be uncountable number of laws all with uncertain jurisdictions. At some places this might be a good thing though, where collectivist leftist aggression has not yet succeeded, such as in Arizona and the likes.

We should really throw the term "direct democracy" out of this thread as it doesn't really apply to the conversation.
 
In 2000 Gore won the popular vote. If people had chosen to ignore the Electoral College and voted for Gore instead of Bush, Gore would have also won the Electoral College vote, and these people would be screaming their heads off.


They are just a bunch of dyed in the wool hypocrites. They don't care about anything but having their way. HYPOCRITES.

Thank God people were not that stupid.
Total partisanship. They would not have been stupid. GW Bush ruined this country. And the same will happen if Trump is elected, only 10 times worse. Even GW and his whole family know what an asshole Trump is and how much damage he would do to this country.

Is the country a ruin? Or, wait, did Obama fix the "ruined" country?
Despite your partisan vision of reality, the actual truth is that Obama has recovered much of the damage Bush did. Bush nearly ruined this country: Obama has spent his entire tenure as president trying to repair the damage.

My partisan vision of reality? :lmao:

All I did was respond to your comment that Bush "ruined the country." Now you're saying he "nearly" ruined the country.

I have never seen anything to indicate the country has been ruined. It's hyperbole. The country went through a recession, but it wasn't ruined. Bush may not have been a good president, but you give him far too much credit to think he ruined or almost ruined the country.

I wonder just what you think my "partisan vision of reality" is, or who it is I'm partisan towards. :p
 
You want the people of NY, Los Angeles, Philly, and Chicago to select the President every four years?

Dumb, really dumb!

So, you think someone living in Wyoming should get extra consideration?
Yes. They should get extra consideration. Their geography and way of life is different. And a democracy is not a democracy if it excludes you because of your geography or way of life.

Somebody's 'way of life' gives them extra benefits to our electoral process? Geography? Maybe at one time but we have the Internet now and nobody is going to bumfuck Arkansas to campaign anyway.

Why are the presidential candidates campaigning in Maine and NH? You really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. You just make shit up to support your flawed point of view.

New Hampshire is a battleground state and Maine has a couple of loose electoral votes that are competitive. Simple enough for you or do you need to drool on it for awhile?

How many electoral votes do they have? Not many. The candidates are there because without the electoral college, they never need to leave the safe confines og NY, LA, Philly, Chicago, or any other major city.
 
Yes. They should get extra consideration. Their geography and way of life is different. And a democracy is not a democracy if it excludes you because of your geography or way of life.

Somebody's 'way of life' gives them extra benefits to our electoral process? Geography? Maybe at one time but we have the Internet now and nobody is going to bumfuck Arkansas to campaign anyway.

No because from the point of view of the democratic process, the Wyoming farmer needs as much chance at the election as a Manhattan worker, even if there are a lot more Manhattan workers than Wyoming farmers.

Nobody campaigns in New York thanks to the electoral college, what are you talking about? Hell, nobody campaigns in Wyoming either.

Hey bonehead! I have a newsflash for you! Both the main presidential candidates are from NY!

And? What does that have to do with anything? You're in the weeds here, aren't you?

No weeds around here. The liberal potheads have already smoked it all up!
 
So, you think someone living in Wyoming should get extra consideration?
Yes. They should get extra consideration. Their geography and way of life is different. And a democracy is not a democracy if it excludes you because of your geography or way of life.

Somebody's 'way of life' gives them extra benefits to our electoral process? Geography? Maybe at one time but we have the Internet now and nobody is going to bumfuck Arkansas to campaign anyway.

Why are the presidential candidates campaigning in Maine and NH? You really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. You just make shit up to support your flawed point of view.

New Hampshire is a battleground state and Maine has a couple of loose electoral votes that are competitive. Simple enough for you or do you need to drool on it for awhile?

How many electoral votes do they have? Not many. The candidates are there because without the electoral college, they never need to leave the safe confines og NY, LA, Philly, Chicago, or any other major city.

And the electoral system means the candidates spend an inordinate amount of time in the 'battleground states'. Whichever system is used it seems that much of the country gets second-tier treatment. :dunno:
 
It's ok if it's liberals asking for electoral voters to NOT vote for Trump in states he won, but not for electoral voters to NOT vote for Hillary in states she won?

Liberal logic at its finest. Derp
 
I'm not sure that having a direct democracy, without an electoral college would be any better.

Actually, that's not direct democracy, it's still representative. With an electoral college the only places candidates are going to campaign are battleground states, without the electoral college that unlocks the entire country.

You realize that the top 11 states have more people, than the rest of the states combined.

And? At least they would campaign where people live. Plus, statelines would no longer matter. Maybe Arizona isn't in the top 10 or 11 but Phoenix is one of the top 10 most populated cities and it's people are ignored, at least until the state became competitive. To be honest, there are fewer people in smaller states so yeah, they are going to receive less attention and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is as the video I posted demonstrates that it takes 3 Californians votes to equal someone from Wyoming with the electoral college and there is nothing fair about that.

In a direct democracy, the bottom 20 states combined, have a smaller number of voters than California, and about as many as Texas, and a tad more than New York.

Nobody is advocating for direct democracy. Nobody can win an election by only campaigning in California, New York and Texas as no states will vote as a monolith. Imagine Clinton flying from San Francisco > Reno > Salt Lake City and then onto Boise. Won't find that sort of diversity now.

Point being, a politicians would have no reason whatsoever to campaign in the vast majority of the country.

That's already happening and especially in those predetermined larger states where people live.

Why would anyone campaign in Wyoming under a direct democracy?

To be honest, they never will because nobody lives there but at least their votes are in proportion with everyone else. Then again, a side trip from Denver could take a candidate to Cheyenne as there is at least some amount of incentive to 20, 30 or even 40% of the vote rather than the winner take all thing we have now.

If you got the vote of every single registered legal voter in the state, it would be nothing. The electoral college can't possibly make campaigning there less worthwhile. If anything, it makes it more valuable.

It doesn't though, the electoral college disenfranchises people who don't vote with the majority of their state unless they live in a battle ground. There is virtually no reason for a Democrat to vote in Wyoming or the millions of Republicans in California to pull the lever for Trump as it changes nothing.

Well that part is true. Not that it matters. It's true that the electoral college does make it so your vote has no value if the majority of the state votes otherwise.

But think about the logic of that premise. In 2012, there were over 126,144,000 votes cast. By the exact same logic you just gave, 63,072,001 votes means the other 63,071,999 votes didn't matter. They have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the entire direction of the US government.

Let's go back and use California as an example. Republicans aren't voting for the President of California. Their vote is null and void, their vote means nothing in the end. Where as if we counted the popular vote then it comes down to everyone voting equally for President. There are always going to be winners and losers but at least everyone's vote should count the same. In smaller states their vote is worth more because fewer votes make up one electoral college delegate.

I was disenfranchised. Boo hoo.

Do you see my problem? I don't see that this will change anything. At best it will simply make the existing problem, all that more apparent. This is why historically all direct democracies have caved in on themselves.

This is exactly why the people who founded this country didn't want us voting on the president directly to begin with. Or the Senators, or Representatives.

Once again, voting for President and bypassing the electoral college and going with the popular vote is not the definition of direct democracy. Direct democracy is where citizens vote directly for bills instead of elect representatives to do that for them. You know, Congress.

The electoral college has nothing to do with saving the Republic.

Well in that case direct democracy is an immediate turf war. Like that between rival gangs of a city. Because if everyone has his own gang to write and ratify his own laws, then there will be uncountable number of laws all with uncertain jurisdictions. At some places this might be a good thing though, where collectivist leftist aggression has not yet succeeded, such as in Arizona and the likes.

We should really throw the term "direct democracy" out of this thread as it doesn't really apply to the conversation.

Well I think that's the goal. We'll start directly electing every individual. They'll we'll start directly voting on policy. Then we'll destroy ourselves, because everyone will blame everyone else for the reason the policies still fail. Eventually one group, likely the left-wing socialist group will realize the only way to get everything they want, is to control everyone, and kill everyone they can't control.

Which is why nearly every left-wing movement turns to violence and authoritarianism.

There's a reason the first thing Hugo Chavez did when he came to power was repeal the rule that the military could not operating in civilian areas, and created publicly funded militia groups.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top