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.

 

Republican Presidential Elector From Texas: I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year’s election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day.

LINK


Now things are getting interesting. This is a Republican presidential elector from Texas stating publicly they're going to change their vote.

I think it's time to look at where this could lead. I can already hear the "it's illegal" claims, and I have an answer for that.

The votes are made anonymously. How can anyone enforce a fine without being able to show any evidence that a law was broken? Now that we have several people who will supposedly be faithless electors in the current election, the cat is out of the bag. There will be no way whatsoever to know who the faithless electors were anymore (with the exception of all the electors from a certain state being faithless electors).

As to whether or not states can legally make faithless elector's votes void, I believe the following Supreme Court decision answers the question. The Supreme Court determined that electors in the Electoral College have the right to be faithless electors.


The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair[8] in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added).[8]

The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."[9]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

SOURCE


A "mutiny" in the Electoral College has happened before.

1836 Presidential Election: Faithless Electors Altered the Outcome of the Electoral College Vote
edit on 5-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Also, not voting for HRC.

twitter.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
It's rigged. Donnie said it all along.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
He will be replaced with someone that will . State procedure.
Thread over
Done
Next



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

So one guy doesn't like Trump? Lots of people don't like him. Lots of people don't like me, that's life.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

My concern is that if this is what is being admitted publicly, what could be happening behind the scenes that we don't know about? For example...


A top Democratic operative has confirmed that there is a plan amongst some members of the electoral college to defy the people in their states and not vote for Donald Trump on December 19th.

According to TV host David Pakman, who yesterday broke news of a plot by 15 electors to not vote for Trump and lobby others to do the same in an effort to prevent him from getting the 270 electoral votes he needs to become president, the claim has been corroborated by a second source.

LINK


My point is that there could be so much going on that we don't know about that the results of the Electoral College could be very different than what we expect.
edit on 5-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I can only hope that any electors who sway the outcome of the election can live with the mayhem that they will create.

*While I did vote, I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump and consider them both to be equally evil.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Democrat electors won't be voting for Trump, it's not some conspiracy to defy the electoral college. It's infowars dude.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Christopher Suprun doesn't seem to be a senator or representative of Texas. How is he an elector? I can't find him on the list of state elected officials either. So who is he?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
He claims Trump is not qualified for the office, but failed to look up what qualifications one must have.




Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Source www.presidentsusa.net...



Donald Trump qualifies to be president of the United States of America. Nothing in our constitution says one must be a career politician.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Stephen Supron Jr.

Not Chis(Christopher)
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
It's rigged. Donnie said it all along.


Yeah, rigged in Donald's favor. But, maybe others are trying to "re-rig" the system.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


This statement says that this particular Elector is an IGNORANT IDIOT.

"However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office." duh..


Donald Trump shows DAILY that he is not qualified for the office? How the hell do they pick these ELECTORS? Donald Trump has attempted to do more BEFORE BECOMING PRESIDENT than Barack Obama did in his first 6 months AS PRESIDENT!



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Echo007

Technically. But he's talking about qualified to actually do the job. Everything we've seen about this bleep quite clearly show us just how unqualified he actually is.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Profusion


This statement says that this particular Elector is an IGNORANT IDIOT.

"However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office." duh..


Yeh, well "its opinion".

That's why we vote.

We all have different opinions.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Elected officials and representatives of any government agency are forbidden from being electors. The electors are just citizens.
They do equal the same number of senators and representatives of each state but they are not the senators or representatives.
edit on 1262016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
history.house.gov...


Objections

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

Objections to the Electoral College votes were recorded in 1969 and 2005. In both cases, the House and Senate rejected the objections and the votes in question were counted.


The 1836 scenario was addressed by the law passed in 1887.

Enough flipped votes (it takes 42) that will slide through Congress without any objections....... won't never happen.
edit on R192016-12-06T10:19:41-06:00k1912Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Right now he works diametral to common grounds the USA established over the decades. If that is qualified working, you wouldn't want to live in a house where the workers do their job diametral to the usual way.

But it is politics, we don't know nothing about it. Mr. Trump neither, but he is elected and will provide a flower bucket of peculiarities, because he is so "not establishment". While being a billionaire. Sure.

He plays a game.

I don't trust any of his words, but am waiting for his actions, on which I (and obviously most policians all over the world) will build up trust - or not.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

Elected officials and representatives of any government agency are forbidden from being electors. The electors are just citizens.
They do equal the same number of senators and representatives of each state but they are not the senators or representatives.


Maybe I should try to get an elector status in my state. Sounds like they are watchdogs. I suppose you could get rich taking bribes as an elector.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion
In the case of a member of the electoral college not voting , they are replaced by someone that will . Even during the convention they are told to STFU and get the "funk out"..



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join