It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Two Washington State electors are now signaling that they’ll refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Robert Satiacum, a former Bernie Sanders supporter, told the Seattle Times that he will refuse to support Clinton no matter what. A second elector from Washington State, Bret Chiafalo, is saying that he may or may not follow his state’s results.

“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Satiacum in a telephone interview with the newspaper, which reached him as he was protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. “I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me ... Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up.”
LINK



www.youtube.com...

There could be some hope even if the entire election up to the Electoral College is rigged. What if there's a revolt at the Electoral College?

Apparently there have been a relative handful of "faithless electors" in U.S. history. Could the possible horror of a Clinton presidency cause enough of a panic to flip the results of the election?


"Faithless Electors" are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party's designated candidate. Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors.
SOURCE


It's just another wrinkle in the marvelous democratic system of the United States. It's elitist from start to finish.
edit on 7-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Maybe 6 in the history of the US. Single Electors. Not going to be a revolt.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

One sure could hope,we need us all to band together rid the country of all this misleading and criminal behavior,all for money



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

One sure could hope,we need us all to band together rid the country of all this misleading and criminal behavior,all for money



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I find the statements as made by the people concerned, to be entirely in line with the assumptions people make about their government in the United States, that its people are not its owners, that its people have no power to effect the course of their nations policy in a way they see fit, that in fact, there is no reason to expect a say in anything.

That the Electoral College exists is enough of a stumbling block to the people having power over their government, but for the selectors to actually state that votes in their region for a given candidate will not be respected... that is absurd. The only legitimate position one could take as a selector, is that neither candidate will receive their share of the vote from that selector, which would be a vote of no confidence in any elected party. That would be using the power they are given wisely and fairly, in such trying and insane times as those the American people are living through today.

But to refuse to take instruction from the people is not something any public servant in any position has the right to do, and to announce it is to urinate in the faces of the masses, to tell them their opinions and their needs are meaningless to the system, that the system exists without them, and will do as it pleases despite, and to spite them. That is beyond callous, and entirely unsupportable.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
There have been around 175 faithless electors in U.S. history. I'm actually against the way our voting system works because of the electoral college but maybe they'll actually do the right thing this time and keep Hillary out of the White House.

There are laws and rules regarding faithless electors but they have never been enforced before, not once. At least, never that I could find. Bet somebody tries threatening it this time though.

I hope more electors come forward to stop her. Somebody needs to and they're the folks that can do it.

*Wikipedia has different info than that site, but it's Wikipedia. Also, that's a pro-voting site so both may be biased or wrong.
edit on 7-11-2016 by Noncents because: Tweaked info



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncents
There have been around 175 faithless electors in U.S. history. I'm actually against the way our voting system works because of the electoral college but maybe they'll actually do the right thing this time and keep Hillary out of the White House.

There are laws and rules regarding faithless electors but they have never been enforced before, not once. Bet somebody tries threatening it this time though.

I hope more electors come forward to stop her. Somebody needs to and they're the folks that can do it.


175? Find a source. I just looked it up 2 nights ago.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra
I updated my post with a link to Wikipedia that has around 175, 178 if I counted right. Also, the OP's source link to Fairvote mentions 157.

Also, very cool of you to flat tell me to find a source instead of looking around for yourself. Your ability to look it up missed the easiest places to start.
edit on 7-11-2016 by Noncents because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncents
a reply to: reldra
I updated my post with a link to Wikipedia that has around 175, 178 if I counted right. Also, the OP's source link to Fairvote mentions 157.


It's 157. Faithless Elector, Wikipedia


Despite 157 instances of faithlessness as of 2015, faithless electors have not yet affected the results or ultimate outcome of any other presidential election.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What's that Saying I have been hearing a lot these last few Months Again ?....." Vote With Your " Conscience* " .....Well.....
edit on 7-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra
Grab a calculator and count up the numbers at the bottom of that page where it lists the number of people per election. I got 178.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

You have not been hearing that, unless your ears have been clogged


You might have heard "Vote with your conscience" but that is somewhat different.

Ultimately, voting both conscious of the flaws and virtues of candidates, and with conscience as to how those candidates will effect your nation in all things would be an ideal scenario. Of course, given that baseline, I would have thought that the primaries would have gone very differently, and that the top two candidates for the presidency would not be a secretly rabid war beast from the depths of hell, and an orange painted rug monster with all the wit of a baked potato.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Pardon me Kind Sir , but I do Think you might be a Tad Misinformed about these Two Cartoon Characters . One is a Self Professed , Self Promoting Patriot , the other is a Confirmed Witch from Hell . So you see , the Choice is an Obvious one for me.........)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

And Now , for your Pleasure , someone getting Hurt in a Very Humorous Way......Enjoy .





posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   
While the OP is interesting, as the conversation progresses, my mind starts to think "who cares"

Its times like these that the rules mean nothing.
Everybody should just do however they feel most in the name of truth, morals, and freedom.
Who cares who votes for whom via whatever mechanism or by whichever fine print rule.
One could wake up on wednesday and decide eff the whole thing and band together with his brothers to start the next civil war.
A lonely operative could decide the outcome of the election didnt quite fit his paradigm and boom, now weve got a VP to deal with.
Obama could magically intervene and make good on fables of martial law and dictatorship.
A foreign power could smell weakness and strike while the people are sleeping, or celebrating, or administering the change of guard.

At this time the finer points of our system are as frail and trivial as ever.
And to that I say good.
And the hell with it.
I will be pissed if something doesnt burn.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

yes, but isnt 157 VASTLY higher than your low ball speculation of 6?



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I would think that replacing "winner take all" with "proportional" for the entire country would ultimately be the best solution.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Like two votes could change an election.
Really guys.

But these guys should be replaced as they have refused to do the job they were hired to do.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Regardless if it has happened before or if it will happen now this is just one more example of the govt overstepping its bounds and doing what it wants opposed to what he people want. It is sickening how many people are on with this.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I am pretty sure this is more about getting attention for the Dakota Pipeline protests. One of them is Native Americam. He will come around.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join