|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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
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.
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.
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 ~
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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/
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.
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
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.
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.
by Marcy Goodfleisch20 months ago
Do you think people will vote for candidates who launch personal attacks against their opponents?Without commenting on specific candidates, how successful do you think that tactic is in election campaigns? Again -...
by Dan Harmon18 months ago
It seems that at least two electors from Texas have decided to cast their electoral college vote not for the man they promised to, but someone else.Christopher Suprun is one of those faithless electors:"That was...
by Emer Kelly5 years ago
Do you think people should have to display an understanding of politics before being allowed to voteI don't mean an in-depth understanding, just a basic one of how government works and what each party/candidate stands...
by Paul Wingert18 months ago
FORGET PRAYING that something will prevent Trump from taking office! It’s like signing the stupid Impeach Bush or Obama petitions that does absolutely nothing except giving you the feeling like you did something by...
by Kaili Bisson6 years ago
Can someone please explain the U.S. electoral college?As a Canadian and follower of U.S. politics, the college remains a mystery to me. Can someone please explain how it works in terms of overall electoral outcomes?...
by John Wilson17 months ago
Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes. Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide. The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.