GOP elector threatens to vote against Bush

from PolMach Forums
Has anybody else heard about this?
In West Virginia, one of the state's five Republican electors is threatening to vote against President Bush in the Electoral College if the president carries the state's popular vote. Richie Robb, who is the mayor of South Charleston, said he would do so to protest what he believes are misguided policies of the current administration. He said, "I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous. But I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction."

Link

I'm against a Bush re-election, but I believe this is going too far. This one man can potentially influence the entire election. To me this is further proof the electoral system is broken.
Anybody have any thoughts? I know you do.
politics
3,947 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your right it's broke! Question is now how do we fix it?
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Actually, this is how the system has always worked - electors were originally devised to allow the electors to use their own initiative when choosing who they should cast their EV for. Some states have put fines to dissuade electors from voting for someone other than the winner of the state, but it's still legal, AFAIK. This is hardly the first time it' happened - there's a history of electors abstaining or changing their vote going all the way back to the 18th century, I believe. In 2000, for example, one of Gore's electors abstained from voting. IIRC, in 1988, one of the electorss for Dukakis switched the Pres and VP tickets when voting. And in 1976(?) one of electors voted for Reagan instead of Ford.

Not that this will matter. IIRC, the elector said he wouldn't vote for Kerry either. Which means there's no situation where the outcome would switch. eg, if the election ended Bush 270-Kerry 268, it would become Bush 269-Kerry 268 and if it was Bush 269-Kerry 269 it would become Bush 268-Kerry 269. In both cases, the election would go to the house, where Bush would almost undoubtably win.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
wouldn't it be a kicker if he cast his vote for Badnarik? Libertarians across the country would go wild!
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
I too am very much opposed to re-electing President Bush, but I would not be in favor of electoral college electors being the ones to prevent such.

One of the main reasons I oppose Bush is that I believe he has surrounded himself with people who have disdain for our long standing "democratic" form of government, and I honestly fear that they will de-stabalize it. In my heart, I am far from certain that they would step down if they apparently lost a close election and could find anything whatsoever to hang a case on.

That said, it would even further destabalize our governmental system to have the election appear to have gone one way, and then have the electoral college reverse it. Legal, yes, but destabalizing nonetheless. This country very much needs a "normal" election where the winner is clear cut and the tradition of orderly, legal succession is reinforced. It might be a disappointment for fans of the arcane, but elections were not intended for amusement.

The 2000 election was a very bad thing, assuming you are a fan of "democratic" government, and it is essential to avoid any fogginess in the results this time.