TexasCHLforum.com

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Try this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-re ... l-college/
"As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

This supports why an elector must not succumb to the whining and protesting progressive dems that look to live off other people's money or further their own wealth. The electoral college is working as designed. This one elector is going against the grain by succumbing to the mob of progressive dems that just don't like the results.

Your logic escapes me.

Hamilton describes what electors are intended to do, i.e. be informed, judgemental, and make a choice. The elector that this topic is about is trying to do that. Right or wrong, you have to respect his motives. He understands the founders' intent.

dale blanker wrote:It seems to me that in a perfect world the only oath an elected official should take is to support the Constitution and conduct his elected office with honor. Other pledges such as to have no effective tax increase or support an unknown final candidate seem dumb to me. An elected official should be able to vote their conscience depending on the final definition of the issue. The founders decided that a state's vote for president should be determined by electors, not just by popular vote, and these electors could exercise hopefully better judgement and resist radical change. Another check and balance, but most states or political parties have managed to undermine this objective. Should they?

Oldgringo wrote:Run his face and address in the paper and on the local news. Give him his 15 minutes of fame!

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Alf wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Based upon this new evidence of the "Republican" elector being in cahoots with the opposition, the Texas Republican Party should strip his elector status and replace him with someone who will fulfill their duty to vote for the candidate who won the state.

can they do that? would that basically be a recall? is there time?

I think they have until the 13th to change the lineup.

cool, then they need to do that, there should be alternates ready to take his place

Who do I write?

Skiprr wrote:Anyone else disappointed that Change.org is now basically telling you that unless you make a donation, your vote will be relegated to obscurity and that only paid submissions will make a difference?

G26ster wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: There's another name for northerners who come to the South and act like they know what's best for us...carpetbagger!

A lot of New York bashing going on.

I don't like what this elector is planning to do, but blaming where they were born or raised is a red herring IMHO. I'm a native New Yorker, a staunch conservative, and have been voting since 1964, and I have never voted for a Democrat. I've lived and worked in Texas for 28 years.

On a factual historical note, 55 men from "Yankee" states died defending the Alamo (nearly 1/3 of the total). Only 11 native Texians died at the Alamo. The rest were outsiders from other states and foreign countries. None of the Presidents of the Republic of Texas were native Texans. Did they not think they were doing what was best for Texas? Were they "unscrupulous opportunist" carpetbaggers too?

Texas has been growing liberal democrats of its own for a long time, with many born and raised right here.