Texas Republican elector won't vote Trump

[RogueUSMC]

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!

How the electors conduct themselves in regards to representing the states is one of the few state's rights left...

[parabelum]

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.

I like the example TAM! Simpson's paradox.

[NTexCopRetired]

Another example: UT beats A&M 54-20 but A&M had 1500 total yards of offense and UT had 450. A&M declares themselves the winner. It's not how much you run up and down the field, it how many times you cross the goal line. Otherwise, you would have a totally different strategy on winning the game.

Also, this guy references Star Wars as to why he won't vote for Trump. Silly man.

[puma guy]

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.

Just ask yourself if you'd be happy to have a single state elect a president. In fact ask yourself how happy you'd be to have a New York City elect a President. Then realize it only takes one of the five NYC counties to do it. NYC almost accounts for the entire popular vote difference between HRC and DJT. Pretty smart guys those Founding Fathers.

[Pariah3j]

Well the Electoral College is picked for just this reason and so that its not based directly by vote, but they are suppose to take that into consideration. They are suppose to vote their conscious. He's within his right, but hopefully isn't allowed to be part of the Texas EC ever again. Not like the EC count is so close that it'll make any difference, that and he says he's not voting for Hillary so there's that upside.

On another note, when I read der Teufel's comment, I thought he meant, get rid of the human electoral voters, meaning assign the votes according to the EC and prevent these types of shenanigans.

And why the hell are we picking New Yorkers as EC candidates anyways ?

[crazy2medic]

I just sent an Email to the other Elector Mr.Mann requesting that he attempt to persuade this faithless dolt from betraying Texas voters, I let ya'lll know if I get a reply

[bblhd672]

Apparently this is not just one or two malcontents, but an organized effort to throw the country into a constitutional crisis:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... p-n2255693

[highrez58]

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.

[G26ster]

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.

[parabelum]

I am more concerned about setting the precedent of allowing doofuses to create upheaval, no doubt to garner attention and, dare I say, a bit of monetary gain.

[Bitter Clinger]

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.

[Nano]

Signed.

[Vol Texan]

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.

TAM,

I could be wrong here, but I don't think he was suggesting to get rid of the Electoral College (from a distribution of votes per state perspective). I THINK (and I could be wrong) that he was suggesting that the distribution of votes to the states should be the same, but the assignment of those votes by the states should be an automatic thing, rather than relying on the manual practice of sending people to actually cast votes.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but if I'm reading it right, it was not the same as what you responded to.

VT

[The Wall]

I signed the petition. They need 47 more at the time of this posting.

[puma guy]

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

I have pointed out that Texas' independence was won with but a handful of Texians. Most were from other states as well as many others from other countries.
I was born in New York City, Jamaica - Queens Borough and I chuckle a bit if someone touts about being a native Texan. There are very few if you track the origins of their family; unless ofcourse they are a member of a Native American Tribe. Carpetbaggers were a comletely different ilk than the freedom loving patriots that arrived in Texas before and during it's fight for independence. No comparison whatsoever.