TexasCHLforum.com

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.[/quote

The Annoyed Man wrote:

der Teufel wrote:OTOH, the electors do have the authority to vote for whomever they please according to whatever principles or beliefs they may hold. Otherwise, why do we have the Electoral College? Why not just automatically assign the electoral vote of the the state to the winning candidate and skip the Electoral College vote completely?

Personally, that's my preference. Skip the Electoral College shenanigans and just declare that the winning candidate gets the votes. Done!

Nope. That is a horrible idea. There is a VERY GOOD REASON for the existence of the electoral college.

Consider a parallel example........... Think of it as a sports analogy using major league baseball's world series. The world series consists of 7 separate games, of which the winning team must win 4 or more to win the championship. Let's say that it's a 7 game series, and it goes like this:

AL / NL score

Game 1: 15 / 3
Game 2: 14 / 5
Game 3: 10 / 2
Game 4: 0 / 2
Game 5: 2 / 5
Game 6: 5 / 6
Game 7: 3 / 4

In that situation, the NL team won the series, because it won 4 of the 7 games. That's analogous to electoral college vote. But the losing AL team scored a total of 48 points in the series to the winning team's 27 points. How can a team score MORE points in the series and still lose? It's because it isn't total points that matter, it is games won.

In this analogy, winning or losing a game is the same as winning or losing a state. Total points scored is the same as the popular vote. Go read your copy of the Constitution. The people don't elect a president. The STATES elect the president. The popular vote in each state serves to determine how the state will vote, but it's the state that votes, not the people. There's only 50 states plus DC, and they each have a number of electors equal to their congressional representation. So winning the general election means putting together the combination of states you can win in, with enough electoral votes between them to meet or exceed 270 votes.

This system exists SPECIFICALLY to protect the interests of states with lower populations when it comes to selecting a president who is supposed to represent all the people. Without the electoral college, states with smaller populations become unimportant. California's voters outnumber Texas' voters. Add in the leftist northeaster states with their high populations, and you can kiss the Constitution goodbye if the electoral college is ever abolished.

If that's what you want, then keep advocating for an elimination of the electoral college. OTH, if you love the Constitution and place a high value on its protections of your rights - particularly your 1st and 2nd amendment rights - you MUST support the electoral college. There are TWO kinds of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny of the minority. The electoral college exists EXACTLY to prevent either kinds of tyranny.