Do you think people who are "electors" have the right to vote against who people

1. 84

   RJ Schwartzposted 8 years ago

   Do you think people who are "electors" have the right to vote against who people voted for?
   
   Christopher Suprun, a Texan and a Republican is one of the 538 people chosen to be "electors" - meaning one of those who will cast their vote in the Electoral College in a few weeks.  Mr. Suprun is making headlines stating he will not carry out the will of the voters and cast a vote for Donald Trump.  Do you agree with him?  America's way of choosing elected officials is under the microscope now and many who oppose Trump think this is just fine.  What if it were the other way around?  Remember that once something is done, both sides can use it - ask Harry Reid if his nuclear option sounds good
   
   

   report
2. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 8 years ago

   We have reached the point where the election process should change.
   
   My suggestion would be to rent a large stadium and let all the candidates fight it out.  The last person standing would be the winner.
   
   The positive side of this would be none of the losers could protest and would never run for office again.  Yes I know this is barbaric, but so is changing the rules after the game is played.
   
   My vote would be to tell Christopher Suprun his days as an "elector" are over and his political career is now ended.

   report
   1. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, the Romans have a job waiting for you...bring your trident and gladius

      report
3. 60

   Gorun1posted 8 years ago

   Well RJ that's a very  interesting question. When I lived and worked in the UK,  just a few short months ago during the Brexit vote some MPs elected stated the same. I believe the electors must serve the people. By going rogue you show no loyalty. It can and probably would backfire.

   report
   1. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good answer

      report
4. 57

   Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

   Mr. Suprun is the Second ELECTOR from Texas to Reject Trump and the number should increase ~ Not Only does he & other Electors have the "RIGHT", but they have a "Constitutional OBLIGATION & Duty" to Prevent an Incompetent Madman like Trump from entering OUR White House ~ He LOST the VOTE by MORE than 2.5 MILLION ~
   
   An UNPRECEDENTED Election Deserves an UNPRECEDENTED Outcome ~ Trump has not even been sworn in yet & he's already Inciting CONFLICT & Potential WARz with CHINA & Iran ~ What happens when he gets his Anxious Finger on the "BUTTON" ?? ~
   
   Let's "Hope & PRAY" more Electors follow their Conscienses on December 19, 2016 to AVERT a Future Calamity ~

   report
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      AP - Keep dreaming but it isn't going to happen.  I would have thought by now you would have calmed down a little but guess not.

      report
   2. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm very CALM Mike, VERY Concerned as ALL Americans are and should be, but very CALM ~ I'm not sure how U "READ the MINDs" of  Electors but good luck, U may be right or WRONG ~ Let's see if they  Elect or REJECT the most UNFIT person in HISTORY

      report
   3. 60

      Gorun1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like sour grapes AP. You totally seem to forget that the 45th President of US is just what everyone has been screaming about for years an "outsider" not a groomed nominee. That dope in the Cali air your breathing is hindering your thoughts.

      report
   4. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      NOPE ~ The most UNFIT "Delusional Donald" Candidate is certainly NOT what everyone's been "Screaming About" ~ In REALITY, 46.2% of VOTERs "SCREAMED About Him", many of which are now EXPRESSING Deep Regret ~ 48.2% of Voters REJECTED Trump

      report
   5. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Prime - I thought you'd still be in mourning over the horrendous loss Hillary suffered - imagine being bested TWICE by people with no political capital - man, that's some funny stuff

      report
   6. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I wasn't aware Trump or Hillary were campaigning for the popular vote - oh, I forgot how Liberals think - rules only apply if they win.  Now Thanks to Harry Reid, Jeff Sessions will be the new AG and the cabinet will be easily seated

      report
5. 61

   The Old Guardposted 8 years ago

   
   
   I think a person chosen to be an "elector" should vote as the states has voted - that's the Constitutional duty.
   If after the first round of voting, a president is not chosen, then there's a process that allows the "elector" to deviate from that.
   But, if an elector does not respect the wishes of his/her fellow citizens, I think tarring, putting feathers on and dragging him/her through the biggest city in the state would be justified.
   If he/she dies in the process - well, I wouldn't think we'd have a discussion about whether an "elector" should follow the wishes of the voters in the state in the near future.
   Simple solution for an uncomplicated problem.
   Cheers

   report
6. 91

   MizBejabbersposted 8 years ago

   Nope, but remember that I'm an old lady, and at one time there was such a thing as a civics class taught in school. Then (back in the Dark Ages) we were taught that the electors voted in proportion to the vote of the people, not all votes for the majority candidate in their state. The way it was explained to us, if a state had 12 electors and 3/4 of the people voted for Candidate A and 1/4 of the voters went for Candidate B, then 9 votes went for the party of Candidate A and 3 votes went for Candidate B. Not all of the votes went for Candidate A just because he got the majority of votes. That was how the electoral college was originally set up as a fair way to represent the people.
   
   Please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't see the electoral votes being split in this manner in this election when the votes were coming in. IF that is the way it is still done, then I think they should represent the people in proportion to the votes each candidate got in his/her state.
   
   If it isn't still being done in that manner, can someone please tell me when the law changed to make it all for one.

   report
   1. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Donald Trump won more counties in America than Ronald Reagan did.....

      report
7. 83

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   In most states, that would be against the law.
   The liberals threatening violence against the electors to change their votes are very much breaking the law and should be jailed. And if many electors change their votes because of the liberal bullying, the electoral college vote is moot.
   
   Electoral College members harassed, threatened in last-ditch attempt to block Trump
   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … euver-blo/
   
   Electoral voters 'deluged' with death threats in multiple states
   http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/electoral-co … h-threats/

   report
   1. 0

      Lizam1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Tamara, it is interesting that the violence created by Donald Duck and his cronies is not an issue for you - as well as the misogyny and hate speech he spewed.  Essentially he did NOT get the popular vote.

      report
   2. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The fake violence that the left tries to pin on Trump plus the vitriolic labeling of his actions are the problem - Calling an illegal alien a criminal is a fact, not hate speech

      report
8. 98

   Sustainable Sueposted 8 years ago

   The electoral system was set up to protect the country from an uneducated populace electing someone who was unqualified to be President. That was 200+ years ago. A lot has changed since then, including that most of the populace is now educated, yet the system has not changed much to match.
   
   Almost half of the states have passed a law requiring electors to reflect the voting preferences of their citizens. Others require that electors all vote for whomever won the most votes in their state. Most of the remaining states have left the choice open.
   
   Constitutionally, states have the right (and even the responsibility) to change a vote that could destroy the government, if it went through. But again, this is presuposing the electors are better educated and wiser about the process of governing than is the general populace.

   report
9. 0

   Lizam1posted 8 years ago

   It is my understanding that Trump did NOT get the majority of votes.  Therefore, surely the system should uphold who did get the majority.  I frankly don't care which side wins but I do care that a bully, misogynist and racist has been allowed to push his way up the ladder.  I have not much admiration for Mrs. Clinton either and I think both parties should hang their heads in shame for their choice of leaders.  However, the majority vote should, in my opinion, be what is supported.

   report
   1. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The President doesn't try to get the majority of the votes - they try to get the Majority of the Electoral College votes, so your argument is invalid.

      report