Posted on 09/14/2012 4:51:00 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...
What happens if they do this? How could they be sanctioned?
Bingo... More of the manipulation of even republicans will vote for obama... Just the propogandist taking advantage of a dumbed down country.
The electoral college members are anointed by the campaif after the election is won
Ron Paul and some of his supporters, are, in their own way, a bunch of maniacs. Listen to Paul talk foreign policy is like listening to a fifth grader.
He’s nuts.
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?
I suspect this will be a far more serious problem for the Dufus. If I recall correctly, there have been several anybody but that idiot candidates who have done very well in Rat primaries ... mainly in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee ... but conceivably they could spring up just about everywhere.
Can you say Ron PaulBots. GOP has been infested by this group.
The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State.
Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate.
Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.
Imagine if the 17th Amendment did not exist and State legislatures alone (no popular input) decided whom to nominate for President/Vice Prez?
I know one thing, the welfare state and the fourth branch, the administrative state, would hardly exist.
“BTW, the Framers thought most elections would end up in the House of Reps. In their view, the state electors served more as a nominating committee.”
Can you share a reference for this?
Start here, and I'll look among the embedded citations for the exact date and Framer's comments.
my wife was upset this happened but I tried to explain to her that the Branch Paulianians were using procedural tricks to muck things up and this was an attempt to head them off..
Why doesn’t the party replace these electors?
He was my last choice.
However, he is the nominee and he is light years ahead of Obama. For the most part, he has been saying all the right things and he picked a GREAT running mate.
Romney DID run a successful buisness and a state while BO never ran anything at all.
And if you are following events in the Middle East, BO and Hillary’s mishandling of foreign affairs is eclipsed only by their miserable performance in the economic sphere.
We need a change from a Marxist Muslim and ROmney is it.
>>Mr. PINKNEY renewed his opposition to the mode, arguing 1. [FN8] that the electors will not have sufficient knowledge of the fittest men, & will be swayed by an attachment to the eminent men of their respective States. Hence 2dly. the dispersion of the votes would leave the appointment with the Senate, and as the President's reappointment will thus depend on the Senate he will be the mere creature of that body. 3. [FN8] He will combine with the Senate agst. the House of Representatives. 4. [FN8] This change in the mode of election was meant to get rid of the ineligibility of the President a second time, whereby he will become fixed for life under the auspices of the Senate.
>>Mr. RUTLIDGE was much opposed to the plan reported by the Committee. It would throw the whole power into the Senate. He was also against a re-eligibility. He moved to postpone the Report under consideration & take up the original plan of appointment by the Legislature, to wit. "He shall be elected by joint ballot by the Legislature to which election a majority of the votes of the members present shall be required: He shall hold his office during the term of seven years; but shall not be elected a second time."
>>Col. MASON admitted that there were objections to an appointment by the Legislature as originally planned. He had not yet made up his mind, but would state his objections to the mode proposed by the Committee. 1. [FN10] It puts the appointment in fact into the hands of the Senate, as it will rarely happen that a majority of the whole votes will fall on any one candidate: and as the Existing President will always be one of the 5 highest, his reappointment will of course depend on the Senate. 2. [FN10] Considering the powers of the President & those of the Senate, if a coalition should be established between these two branches, they will be able to subvert the Constitution-The great objection with him would be removed by depriving the Senate of the eventual election. He accordingly moved to strike out the words "if such number be a majority of that of the electors."
On the next day, September 6th, the Framers moved the election from the Senate to the House, where it remains today.
They are named in the article. They are Ron Paul supporters willing to throw the election to Obama if they can because their candidate did not win the primary and the RNC would not put up with their shenanigans...many of the Paul supporters actually believe he legitimately won the nomination but that Romney and the RNC “stole” it from him.
She needs to re-read the Constitution - it was set up to make sure each state had a voice according to their populations, but also so that the smallest states would also have a minimal voice and not be completely drowned out by the larger states. The Constitution also states clearly the Electors are to be chosen in a manner decided by the States - and in her State, the method is to allow the people to choose how their Electoral Votes will be allocated. Her conduct will end up adding fuel to the fire to get rid of the Electoral College altogether. I guess the Paulites want the foundations of our Republic destroyed.
Do you really believe these Ron Paul supporters would have acted any differently with any nominee other than Paul himself?
It is Paul, who alone in the debates, has shown an historic grasp of foreign policy considerations--as well as a clear understanding of the strength & benefit of traditional American Foreign Policy--the legacy of General Washington & Thomas Jefferson. It is a policy of strength, based upon treating others with respect--but in Jefferson's words, punishing the first insult--as he did when he sent the Marines to deal with the Barbary Pirates in his first term. (We treat all with respect, so long as we get respect back; if not, you pay the consequences.)
The Bush II foreign policy was not Conservative--it was the policy adopted by the Leftist seeker of World Government, Dean Rusk (the Kennedy/Johnson Secretary of State in the 1960s).
Perhaps the best way to understand the issues is by contrasting--paragraph by paragraph--Bush II's Second Inaugural Address, and George Washington's views on the same points (Washington's Answer To George W. Bush).
It is Washington who showed profound understanding of ageless realities; not the pathetically confused Bush, or the Bush lite, Obama.
William Flax
The only one I can see named in the article is Melinda Wadsley, an Iowa Paultard. Where do you find the other two?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.