3 GOP Electoral College members say they may not vote for Republican ticket of Romney/Ryan [IDIOTS]

Washington Post ^ | September 13, 2012

[SoFloFreeper]

At least three Republican electors say they may not support their party’s presidential ticket when the Electoral College meets in December to formally elect the next president, escalating tensions within the GOP and adding a fresh layer of intrigue to the final weeks of the White House race.

[CodeToad]

“We need a change from a Marxist Muslim and ROmney is it.”

Unfortunately, Romney is a Marxist non-Christian, too. He may have run a business, but he believes in high taxes and HillaryCare/RomenyCare/ObamaCare and is anti-2nd.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I hope they have big life insurance policies. They would definitely have to move to France.

[Jacquerie]

You are welcome.

[Madam Theophilus]

I’m not sure that would be the case. A majority of our state governments have been heavily influenced by the progressive movement for almost 100 years. We may have had even more liberal administrations!

[Bikkuri]

Thank you.. very good (and important) read.

[Bikkuri]

Here you go (and this is NOT directed at you..):

[Jacquerie]

My point is that if the states were represented in their corporate capacity in the Senate, and the Prez relied on the individual State legislators for his continuance in office, it is doubtful the Senate and Prez would sign off on laws that require the States to spend money on programs they have little control over.

It makes a huge difference that the entire Congress depends on popular elections. Our Senators don't give a rip how much any program costs their States; their job security depends on passing out goodies to their people.

The 17th was a horrid error.

[Jacquerie]

You are welcome. When I read and studied the Constitutional Convention notes of Madison last year, I was amazed how much of what passed for common knowledge just wasn’t true.

[Bikkuri]

I was amazed how much of what passed for common knowledge just wasn’t true.

So true.. I am wondering WHAT is being taught now in Social Science/Government classes now (and for the last 30+ years).. (hated that class, BTW.. :p the teacher was the basketball coach and he hated me since I totally sucked at basketball.. I had to study hard to pass in his class :\ ).. (was good at track though :D )

Back to the point.. it is also surprising (well, not really anymore) what we THINK is common knowledge is way off the mark (which I think you meant too).

Take care, my FRiend, and PRAY for our Republic to survive and come back again.

Bikk

[Republican Wildcat]

They are all three named in the article - the article is a two page article - make sure you are reading the whole thing by clicking the button to go the second page.

[Jacquerie]

Amen Bro! We are a determined minority of Constitutionalists.

[cookcounty]

"Until November 6, there are no electoral college electors. The election decides who the electors actually are. Until the election, there are no electors " Actually, the two slates of Electors (GOP and Dem) are chosen well in advance of Election Day. Most are already selected. The November election decides WHICH SLATE actually goes to the Electoral College.

[cookcounty]

OOOps. Forgot to preview, sorry:

"Until November 6, there are no electoral college electors. The election decides who the electors actually are. Until the election, there are no electors "

Actually, the two slates of Electors (GOP and Dem) are chosen well in advance of Election Day. Most are already selected. The November election decides WHICH SLATE actually goes to the Electoral College.

[NoLibZone]

Ron Paul supporters have always been liberals.

[NoLibZone]

Ron Paul shares a laugh with Cynthie McKinney . Paultards are NeoNazis.

[bert]

You are correct and have clarified what I intended.

[Sherman Logan]

Imagine if the 17th Amendment did not exist and State legislatures alone (no popular input) decided whom to nominate for President/Vice Prez?

The Constitution provides for each state legislature to decide how electors are chosen. Choosing them by means of popular vote within the state is merely custom, not law. If the legislature so decides, it can designate the electors itself, select them by lottery, or by any other method.

This is in theory, of course. In reality a federal court would find some rationale for forcing the legislature to allow popular election.

Not to mention what outraged voters would do to the legislators that voted for such a thing at the next election, or possibly by recall in those states that allow for it.

This almost became a constitutional crisis in the 2000 election, when it looked for a while like the Courts would steal the Florida electoral votes and thereby elect Gore.

There was considerable talk in FL of the Republican legislature removing the Gore electors and replacing them by vote of the legislature. I have no idea how THAT would have played out in the ensuing legal battle, though I'm certain it wouldn't have been viewed positively by the media.

[Jacquerie]

That is why I specified no popular input.

[Sherman Logan]

My point is that the 17th Amendment, which deals with popular election of Senators, has nothing to do with the issue.

The states CAN do what you suggested, so we don’t have to imagine very hard.

[Jim Noble]

Yeah, it's much better for an elector to ignore the will of the state they represent. Which part of "represent" do you not understand?

You better get out your copy of the Constitution and read it, Mr. "Constitutionalist".

The Electoral College is not a representative body. I challenge you to find one line (or even a penumbra or emanation) therein that even HINTS that Electors for President and Vice President of the United States are supposed to represent anybody or anything.