His names sounded familiar. Wonder if he’s related to this guy?
Isn’t this old news? He already said this back in October. That title says he “may” reject Clinton (or another title, “threatens” to) but from his statements, he seemed to be a rather poor choice for a Clinton elector.
I wondered then, and still do: why can’t he be replaced? Are the slates of electors absolutely fixed, long before the elections, no matter what?
He could be his son, if he’s this Robert Satiacum.
I’ve searched for this and am not getting relevant results. Do you mind offering a link to what you’re talking about?
Certainly the law doesn’t require the state’s exact electors to be chosen prior to the election, since that would mean the popular vote on election day would have no bearing. What exactly is Congress requiring?
Edit: changed search terms. I’m finding this:
I can see how this means the electors must be chosen by Election Day (although presumably that could be done by 11:59 pm on election day, once the popular vote is counted). It still looks to my like my modified proposal–campaigns choose their preferred electoral slates on the morning of Election Day–would be legal. Am I missing something?
From the OP’s article:
Good for him. These people who talk about casting protest votes unless they’re in a swing state are ridiculous. Have the courage of your convictions. Too many Americans like empty symbolic gestures.
I am gobsmacked that the first faithless elector is a Democrat rejecting Clinton rather than a Republican rejecting Trump. They must have electric shock collars or something on the GOP electors, I was expecting some of them to say they won’t vote for Trump by now.
Indeed. Freaking out about Clinton is like complaining when your favorite pizza place is out of pepperoni and you have go the sausage and mushroom instead. What a peculiar candidate to get all bet out of shape over. The guy likes Bernie, Bernie likes Hillary. How bad can it be?
Are you really not understanding how the EV works in the US?
Prior to the election the e.g. North Carolina D party chooses 15 people to be their electors. Prior to the election the NC R party chooses 15 *different *people to be *their *electors. Each party chooses people they think will be reliable robots and vote as told by the party hierarchy.
The election ballots have the names of the two presidential candidates. e.g. Clinton & Trump. But what you’re really voting for either the D’s list of electors or the R’s list of electors. The ballot could just as easily have a picture of a donkey and an elephant. What you’re choosing is a party, not a person.
So after the public’s ballots are counted we know which side got more votes: donkeys or elephants. The 15 donkey people *or the 15 elephant people then go to the statehouse to vote in person. The parties’ idea of the game is they’ll all vote along straight party lines for either Clinton or Trump for president. But each elector as an individual can vote for anyone, including Sanders or Carson or you or me or Mickey Mouse.
Then as a separate matter they vote again for VP. The parties’ idea of the game is they’ll all vote along straight party lines for either Kaine or Pence for vice-president. But each elector as an individual can* vote for anyone, including you or me. They could even elect Pence to be Clinton’s VP or Kaine to be Trump’s.
THAT’S how it really works (simplifying a bit). Sorry you’ve somehow missed reading the fine print on your citizenship contract. Should’ve written your name in ALLCAPS!; and avoided courthouses with gold-fringed flags. 
- various states have various laws saying electors must vote party line. For states using a secret ballot they’re practically unenforceable. It’s further unclear whether these laws would pass US constitutional scrutiny if they were ever tested.
It’s not really a fix. What about the intervening months makes you think the campaigns would be better at picking electors immediately before the election instead of earlier? It’s the same people (campaigns) choosing, and 99% of the time they get good ones, but 1% they screw it up. Why would doing it the day before be more accurate?
late add: Insert this after the paragraph on how the VP is voted for. …
The state government totals up the electors’ votes for pres & veep then sends the total to Washington DC. Where Congress totals them up. If one person gets more than 270 president votes, he/she wins it. If one person gets more than 270 veep votes, he/she wins that prize.
Surely the elector can be disqualified right now?
Well, I am of the opinion that this guy has every right under our system of government to do whatever the hell he wants. And I think that is totally stupid.
My bigger issue is: what the hell is wrong with state political parties that they would EVER choose someone to be on a slate of electors such that the individuals have even the most remote chance that they would ever consider not voting for their party’s nominee?
Seriously, Democratic Party of Washington State. There are seven million people who live there. You have at least a million voters who are strong Democratic voters. At least. Your job is to find 12 people out of that pool who aren’t going to fuck things up. Is that so goddamned hard? Evidentially, you aren’t up to the task, because you only found 11 and you threw a crank in there for who knows what reason. Could you not have visited the potential electors’ houses to see if, say, they even had a Hillary bumper sticker or yard sign? And if you didn’t find that their abode was festooned with Hillary signs, flags, pennants, decorations, and whatnot, are you sure that you couldn’t have just moved on down the list to the next guy?
The phase keeps echoing in my brain: “You had one job to do…”
But Article II says that the states can choose electors; how they vote, however, appears to be left to the electors.
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no rule against making electors sign a “pledge,” but a pledge doesn’t prevent them from shrugging and voting another way.
:rolleyes: I understand everything you wrote just fine, thanks, and have read up on the relevant sections of the constitution before posting. Perhaps you shouldn’t rush to the snark so quickly next time; it’s got to be embarrassing for you.
Almost as if it’s a taboo to ask why he can’t be replaced or disqualified. But I think I found the answer. He was elected (i.e. actual people voting for him) at the state convention in back in June.
Washington State Democrats 2016 convention (PDF)
Understandable that people would be loathe to reverse an election. And I’m sure this guy would have his fervent supporters, too.
As later pointed out, they weren’t handpicked appointments by the leaders, but elected by convention delegates, which means a lot of Hillary non-supporters were involved. It could be proposed that the Elector choosing process be changed to happen -after- the national conventions but I don’t know if that would be any help.
That appears to be for delegates to the convention, not electors. I believe electors are chosen by the state delegations at the convention, but I’m not sure how that works.
But it appears that Washington Democrats also select alternate electors:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/2016-Electoral-College-Electors.aspx
Not sure how an alternate gets to be called up from the bullpen.
According to the Green Papers, Washington delegates are chosen by the party organization, not at the state convention. Also, they are officially Elector-candidates until the general election - they become electors only when their party wins the state.
I apologize; I was trying to signal that I was incredulous, not that you were a dummy. As I understood your comments, it seemed that you kept asserting it really worked some other way. My bad if I got that backwards.
So what *is *your issue? What’s your idea of the problem and your idea of the solution?
I think most (not all) of us agree that the EC overall is more of a bug than a feature in today’s world. I think it’s a pretty buggy bit of the system. I don’t think there’s much agreement on what to do instead, nor on how to get there politically. IMO the next 2-plus months are sure not the time to try to formally undermine or change it; stuff’s unstable enough right now as it is.
Sort of–the Founder’s also intended for the States to largely determine how electors are chosen and didn’t seem too bothered by them being more or less bound, as this all happened to varying degrees right away.
The constitutionality of penalties I don’t think is that untested, Ray v. Blair confirmed that States can require electors to pledge to vote a certain way, albeit the same decision alludes to an assumed freedom of action for the electors in casting their actual votes (versus their pledge.)
Two states have interesting statutes on the books, Michigan and Minnesota actually have laws that say if someone actually votes differently than how they pledge, their vote is invalid. This would allow for an ex-post facto, full legal block to any mechanism for an elector casting a faithless vote. I believe the law in these States require the electors to “publicly ballot”, I suppose in the statehouse (State governments actually transmit the votes to Congress, not the electors), and the State government simply refuses to accept votes that aren’t pledged.
If this is constitutional (and it hasn’t been tested) then legally we could effectively block all faithless voting.