TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Naw, I wasn't endorsing Chris Suprun as anything, only defending what I believe should be all electors rights. I still think it's a neat idea to have a filter on the popular opinion which seems so frequently to be poorly informed or formed.

He should have voted Trump based on his pledge. Nothing twisted in that logic except it doesn't align with your progressive liberal thoughts and beliefs.

Liberal? How can you get more conservative than promoting the intent of the founders of the U.S. Constitution?

If it wasn't this way, the east and west coasts would chose all of our presidents. This system spreads the decision more equitably among the citizens of the states.

Your idea of what's equalitable is twisted too. The popular vote for the larger states is obviously compromised somewhat with the Electoral College, but I appreciate the founder's intent and compromise to get constitution approved by giving the smaller states more say.

I fear that if we cannot be more focused, informed, and objective, our republic is at risk.

G.A. Heath wrote:This elector was not breaking his oath/pledge in doing what the founders intended. Instead what he did was break a pledge in an effort to enrich himself and/or his "charity" that is now getting a much closer look. This man has a history of behaviour indicates he is a less than honest person. My advice would be to think long and hard before holding this man up as a "Constitutionalist" or "Patriot" because he is more like a carpet bagger.

Naw, I wasn't endorsing Chris Suprun as anything, only defending what I believe should be all electors rights. I still think it's a neat idea to have a filter on the popular opinion which seems so frequently to be poorly informed or formed.

mojo84 wrote:

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.

It escapes you because I used logic. The citizens of the state of Texas, not a mob of angry lunatics, chose who they want to be president. This guy and one other went against the wishes of the people. Trump is both qualified and the choice of the people of the State of Texas.

Your candidate lost and any efforts to justify discrediting the election or justify the elector's unfaithful actions is disingenuous.

Ok, but your twisted "logic" shows no reasoning. What do you think electors are for???

The Fox article offered by the OP and the Factcheck.org Federalist quote should give you some perspective about the reasons for having electors. The elector was doing exactly what the founders intended, according to Hamilton. It's true he was reneging on a pledge but that pledge was really undermining the intended purpose of an elector anyway.

Of course, this is all academic now that the Electoral College is completed but I think it's good to understand the founders' intent.

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.

Bitter Clinger wrote: There is NOTHING in the 2nd Article of the Constitution stating that electors should vote their conscience. That is simply sore looser left wing dribble being promoted by cry baby Democrats who chose to run a candidate who violated her oath of office and sold state secrets to foreign governments for personal enornment. Small wonder that the same traitors would now encourage electors to violate their oaths. Makes me want to puke...

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."

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?

highrez58 wrote:The electoral college allows the smaller states to have a say in the election. If we didn't have the present system, Hillary would be our president-elect.

Sure, but notice that there are "electors", not just a number of votes on paper depending on the number in a state's representation in Congress. Maybe the founders also hoped the electors would use their conscience and their likely-to-be better informed, more objective judgment. i.e. maybe the founders really were favoring "the establishment"...