West Virginia Electoral College pledges to vote for Kerry even if Bush wins

Originally posted by stumason
I am having a hard time to understand this....your apparently the worlds greatest democracy....

why not just go by the popular vote?? whats with all the f**king around?? Seems like it is over complicated and easy to rig to me......

Because contrary to popular belief, the US is NOT a democracy. We are a democratic REPUBLIC. The point of not using the popular vote is to give more power to the individual state rather then the federal government. This is a good thing.

Originally posted by Montana
But the US is NOT a democracy, come on folks. It's a representative republic. Always has been thats why we have an electoral college, to keep large centers of population from controlling the government. It was a decision made on purpose by the framers of the constitution.

LOL - didn't read this before I posted.

Large population centers still control it all. So the system failed. And if we are not a democracy then why are we trying to force it on everyone else? Shouldn't we start with cleaning up our own yard before we start complaining to the neighbors about theirs?

As the article states, very few electors have ever chosen to break with the tradition.

There have been eight electors in American history who have chosen to go against the popular vote in their home states, including Margarette Leach of Huntington, who declined to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, even though Dukakis carried West Virginia.

Leach cast her presidential vote for Dukakis' running mate, Lloyd Bentsen instead. In 2000, one of the electors from the District of Columbia withheld her vote altogether in protest of the district's lack of statehood.

As far as I know, all the states electors represent the candidate who takes the most most votes in that state. If Robb chooses to vote for Kerry, even though he is a Republican elector, he will face serious political consequences. First of all, the populace is not likely to be pleased with his defection and will hold it against him in future elections. Second, his party will withdraw support from him and he will be dead in the water politically.

"I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous," Robb said. "But I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction."

Fellow elector Rob Capehart was somewhat taken aback by Robb's flirtation with defection.

"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."

Capehart raised the possibility that in a very close election, every electoral vote becomes crucial. In such a case, Robb would wield great power by virtue of his willingness to defect.

"Will Richie Robb decide who the next president is?" Capehart asked. "It's more important for us to maintain an allegiance for the people of West Virginia than an allegiance to our own personal viewpoint."

Clearly, his judgement is extremely impaired as evidenced by this statement.

"I only started to really rethink my position seriously after the accusations about Kerry's service in Vietnam, though," Robb said. "I served in Vietnam, and I think Bush's surrogates, and I think really the Bush campaign, went beyond the line with those ads."

But, his political colleagues feel he will come to his senses.

But state GOP Chairman Kris Warner was confident that Robb would come around.

"I'm confident that he'll do the right thing," Warner said. "He's a veteran. And although he's an independent mayor of South Charleston and does things his own way, he also knows what it's like to be part of a team."

The electoral college is one of the myriad ways the Founders used to make sure the power and influence was evenly distributed among the people.

It is clear to me that many here have not really studied government very diligently. Frankly, even with my graduate degree, most of what I know about government, I learned in high school. Of course, keeping up with current events is a good way to keep the system and its processes clear in one's mind.

Deny ignorance.

The Electoral College is a half-assed attempt at proportional representation. It was good at the time but there are better systems.

The signs are that Colorado is going to move into full proportional representation which means the Electoral College votes will be split and given to each candidate respectively. This is a better system as it allocates the votes according to the population.

There's only been a couple of times in U.S. history that an electoral college delegate has voted in opposition to the popular vote in his state. Unfortunately, one of those times one in my state

Here's what I think should happen to an electoral college delegate that disenfranchises the voters of his state by voting different than they mandated him to...

he should either spend the rest of his life in jail,

or hang from a local tree.

And I'm serious...this is greatest affront to the democratic process that can occur in the U.S. This is the greatest betrayal that can take place.

This guy ought to be removed immediately just on his statements to date.

What a pathetic, egotistical loser.

P.S. And just to make sure the very politically-biased members understand me. If he had said this the opposite way (that he wouldn't vote for Kerry even if the popular vote told him to) I would be saying THE EXACT SAME THING.

This absolutely cannot be tolerated.

Originally posted by Nerdling
The signs are that Colorado is going to move into full proportional representation which means the Electoral College votes will be split and given to each candidate respectively.

This is an acceptable method. I may be mistaken, but I don't think this move would be without precedent.

West Virginia is onto something. But, as an FYI, Bush, the powers that be, the Illuminati etc will see to it that George is president again, no matter what. I'm resigned to this fact. This election will be stolen again like the grinch stole christmas

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
As the article states, very few electors have ever chosen to break with the tradition.

There have been eight electors in American history who have chosen to go against the popular vote in their home states, including Margarette Leach of Huntington, who declined to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, even though Dukakis carried West Virginia.

Leach cast her presidential vote for Dukakis' running mate, Lloyd Bentsen instead. In 2000, one of the electors from the District of Columbia withheld her vote altogether in protest of the district's lack of statehood.

Thanks for pointing this out Grady, as I was about to. WV is known to rock the boat. And really screw up some Media maps in the process...

1988 (colors reversed for some reason)


[edit on 11-9-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by stumason
But surely that is democracy? The majority rules... not because some backward hick town wants to have the same voice as NYC, that doesn't seem fair somehow...

No that is considered mob rule. We have a republic were our voices are hear but indirectly. and this doesnt make sense to me because the party chooses the electoral college voters. And if he made this statement now they will jsut pull that guy out and get a pro- whoever wins.

Valhall, there is no law saying you need to vote how your state votes. So he has every legal right to do this. Not that I think it should be, for I think he should vote how his state votes, even if they vote for corruption. He is the representitive of that state and he is representing badly.

Originally posted by Nerdling
The signs are that Colorado is going to move into full proportional representation which means the Electoral College votes will be split and given to each candidate respectively. This is a better system as it allocates the votes according to the population.

And it is the last time that you will see presidential candidates come to or pay for election commercials in that state�..that could be good or bad.

Originally posted by moxyone
Without the electoral college system...NYC and California would completely control national politics. The total population of many states is less than the populations of LA and NYC. The voices of the people in the smaller states would be silenced. This is why we have the electoral college system, to ensure broad-based representative government.

Correct. 43 of the 50 States have populations of less than 10 million people -- and the U.S. has a total population of 285 million people! Everyone else lives in the remaining 7 States. Without the electoral college, those 43 States and their people would be ignored -- which is not allowed by the U.S. Constitution (and rightly so).

As others have said, the U.S. is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said at the beginning of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, "Democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." The framers of the U.S. Constitution were very wise, and knew a pure democracy (mob rule) was just as dangerous as a dictatorship/monarchy (authoritarian).

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Valhall, there is no law saying you need to vote how your state votes. So he has every legal right to do this. Not that I think it should be, for I think he should vote how his state votes, even if they vote for corruption. He is the representitive of that state and he is representing badly.

That is the only problem with the electoral college, and it's also one that's easily fixable (it's just a matter of, "Which U.S. Congress will be the one to finally pass the law to fix it?") 25 of the 50 States already have the law that their electoral college must vote the way the popular vote in the State went in federal elections. If all 50 States had this law, then the electoral college would be perfect. (I have every confidence that this will be fixed someday; it's just a matter of "when.")

As for the West Virginia delegate... he obviously has no morals, only a liberal agenda.

[edit on 9/11/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Originally posted by Aelita
And why should not large population centers control the govt?
I think they totally should. I don't live in one right now, but still.

Large poulations would not understand or care about the needs of people in less populated areas.

This would lead to a totally biased situation and eventual civil unrest.

It's not about majority rules, i.e. California and New York vs. South Dakota and Nebraska, it's about every state being able to represent themselves in governmental decisions.