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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

@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.

You didn't watch the video, did you? She asked a question and he answered it, like the dumbshit he is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You always have such things to say. I hope you are not this mean to people when they meet you. I keep thinking we could be friends otherwise.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

That is exactly the point. Democracy doesn't provide fairness. It is the electoral college that provide fairness. Otherwise you could as well just be some east European democracy, bussing communist's here and there to generate your required winning majority.

Every geography, rural, small town, Indian reservation, and large city, all get affected by presidential choices. I don't see how it matters whether they are visited or not .. unless the electoral college is removed, which hopefully will never happen.

 

[oreo]

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?

 

[anotherlife]

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.

Gore should have won. That would have been a lot better at that time for everyone in the US as well as all over the world. The electoral college and a usual politically corrupted judge in Florida changed the coarse of history and the functioning ability of the country called USA. This was not a failure of the electoral college.

 

[Papageorgio]

Leave it to a Democrat to not vote for Clinton and break the law. He needs to follow the state's guideline in voting the electoral college.

 

[anotherlife]

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?

Didn't bigger stupidities happen and succeed through Washington DC regularly? You may write common sense but these people are very powerful and if they can try something they will, as usual recently. They usually succeed with it.

 

[anotherlife]

Leave it to a Democrat to not vote for Clinton and break the law. He needs to follow the state's guideline in voting the electoral college.

Yes. The power of the electoral college is in its territorial aspect.

 

[HappyJoy]

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'!

This is a discussion forum, if you don't want to read my posts then don't. Simple as that.

 

[anotherlife]

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?

How does that pledge work? A pledge to support the democrat nominee? Don't they need to count the ballots for that first?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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?

 

[HappyJoy]

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!

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

I'm talking about the electoral college, not the primaries. Do you know how elections work in this country because you don't seem to have a grasp of what you're talking about.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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.

 

[oreo]

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?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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?

The point of this thread is within the OP. And believe it or not, you are right about the law of the electoral. Satiacum already said he'd take the repercussions of his actions.

BUT if you had been paying attention to the actual flow of the conversation.....I had only quoted the part of your comment that said about as significant as a mosquito on an elephant's ass. Then I asked if you'd had experience with that.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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?

Here is another point.....just in case ya missed that too

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.