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

@Esmerelda

Apparently so, I now fully understand why we have sanctuary cities and open borders. It's rather amusing that Dem's have worn out their welcome so much that they're going to have to start busing in foreigners to win.
Bulllshit. People who are not citizens cannot vote. Period. You people will believe anything. That's the problem with Trump supporters. You are so completely stupid and ignorant. You have ZERO critical thinking skills. You are all being conned by the big fat conman and don't even know it.
 
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.
He needs to step aside. Being an electoral college voter is not a personal choice vote. He has to support the voice of Washiington, not his personal voice. And the voice of Washington is blue, not red.


Find that rule where he has to support the majority.
That is not freedom.
Another low information Trump supporter. You don't understand the electoral college. And the vote in Washington is not even close. I'm from Washington: it's a deeply blue state. This guy has no right to vote his personal choice.


I know more and understand the E. C. than you do which is obvious.
What you want is against individual freedom of voting.
To bad you can't see that.
Bullshit. You know nothing. You re an ignorant twit. I know he can vote anyway he wants, but I also know that ethically he shouldn't. He should step aside. It's my state and he is ethically obligated to vote with the majority vote.

No he isn't.
From other points of view he should and does have the right to vote for who he thinks would be best for our Country. We have gotten away from that for the last 40 or 50 years.
What you and others are saying is go full democracy of majority votes and that is far from individual freedom, thats mob rule.
 
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.

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.

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

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.

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

Why would anyone campaign in Wyoming under a direct democracy?

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.
 
This guy has no right to vote his personal choice.

Excuse me??? This country, it's Constitution and the whole 'Democracy' thing guarantees his right to vote his personal choice and the Electorate be damned
 
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.
Again, we don't have a DEMOCRACY.

ITS A REPUBLIC.

The electoral College was set up for this very thing -- to protect the country from the foolishness of mob rule (democracy).

This is why the Founders were brilliant and the Left are fools.
 
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.
Again, we don't have a DEMOCRACY.

ITS A REPUBLIC.

The electoral College was set up for this very thing -- to protect the country from the foolishness of mob rule (democracy).

This is why the Founders were brilliant and the Left are fools.

You attended the Alex Jones school of know-nothingness. Where they teach people to state ridiculous things just 'cuz it makes you feel good'.

Any derp that thinks they are suited to ignore millions of people's votes needs to be drawing Slurpees at 7/11.
 
Good. Keeping criminal scum out of the white house, is exactly why the electoral college exists.
I think the electoral college in antiquated...let the people speak!

You want the people of NY, Los Angeles, Philly, and Chicago to select the President every four years?

Dumb, really dumb!
Get rid of the electoral college. Make every vote count with a popular vote.
No because popular vote immediately results in the tyranny of the majority.


Which is why democracies always fail, because of majority rule.

We are a Constitutional Republic that has the electoral college, which stops dictators, tyrants and corruption.

This guy is doing the right thing by voting for who he thinks would be best for our country, not by party or popular vote.

There have been fewer than 200 faithless electors in the history of the Electoral College, and they have never changed the outcome of a presidential election.
 
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.
Again, we don't have a DEMOCRACY.

ITS A REPUBLIC.

The electoral College was set up for this very thing -- to protect the country from the foolishness of mob rule (democracy).

This is why the Founders were brilliant and the Left are fools.

You attended the Alex Jones school of know-nothingness. Where they teach people to state ridiculous things just 'cuz it makes you feel good'.

Any derp that thinks they are suited to ignore millions of people's votes needs to be drawing Slurpees at 7/11.


It's our actual historical fact.
I do agree with you about AlexJones know nothings though.:)
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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


But we can see the popular vote. In recent times only one election would the popular vote change the outcome of an election and that was in 2000.

You also completely ignore my point. Wyoming and other less populated states get an automatic 3 electoral votes regardless of their low population and they tend to vote Republican. Why should a senate seat in California represent the same population of a senate seat in North Dakota?

I agree, they should do away with the electoral college, I'm tired of giving a fuck what Billy Bob's back 40 votes for.

How about because that is what the Constitution says. Perhaps if you read it instead of using it when you run out of toilet paper, you might learn something.

Who said anything about not constitutionally getting rid of the electoral college?

Go right ahead if you think you have the votes. Until you do something about it, kwitcherbitchin'!
 
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.

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.

People who use these type of stupid arguments obviously slept through their classes on government before they dropped out of school.
 
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.


I don't think the state of Washington would put up with that one--LOL In this country the majority still rules and I doubt they have the authorization to single-handily make a change to the popular vote of their states. The Secretary of State has a lot of power and could easily remove them and cast the electoral college votes.

IOW--They're about as significant as a mosquito on an elephant's ass.
 
Good. Keeping criminal scum out of the white house, is exactly why the electoral college exists.
I think the electoral college in antiquated...let the people speak!

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.
 
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.

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!
 
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.
I am talking about protecting people against the evils of democracy.

Yeah, how? You have yet to explain it. What we do know is that people in larger states tend to have less representation in the electoral college than those in smaller states. That means the electoral college is more unfair to where more people actually live.

Your argument is that people in smaller states need a boost in our presidential elections. Why? What states with a small population to candidates visit? Wyoming? No. Montana, No. North or South Dakota, double no. Where?

And people who live in rural communities rarely ever see presidential candidates because they spend their time in cities for the most part, not farms. Then again, California is the largest farming state int he country, they don't get any help from the electoral college.

Bernie Sanders made two appearances in my town during the primaries. There were more people on his tour bus than voted for him probably in the whole state, yet he came here looking for votes.
 
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?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top