Author Topic: Rogue Republican Elector Warns Trump: "I Am Not The Only One Who Will Not Vote For You"  (Read 2101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
SOURCE: ZERO HEDGE

URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-09/rogue-republican-elector-warns-trump-i-am-not-only-one-who-will-not-vote-you



Last week a Republican member of the Electoral College, Christopher Suprun, published an op-ed in the NYT explaining why he would not be casting his vote for Donald Trump. Suprun is the same elector who the NY Post reported one month ago that he’s on track to vote as assigned for Donald Trump next month, despite reports saying he’d consider going rogue and voting for Hillary Clinton. Previously, Politico had quoted Suprun in August saying he found Trump so unpalatable, he’d consider going “rogue” and voting for Clinton. He then told the Post that he “always planned to vote for his party’s nominee” when Electoral College electors gather in their respective state capitals to finalize Trump’s presidency on Dec. 19.

He lied, as his NYT op-ed made very clear: "The election of the next president is not yet a done deal,” Suprun wrote. “Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience.”

"Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief", Suprun also wrote, adding that Trump’s business dealings might pose unacceptable conflicts of interest, Suprun adds - a problem that could seem him “impeached in his first year given his dismissive responses."

Yesterday, Suprun spoke to Jonathan Karl and Rick Klein on the Powerhouse Politics Podcast, and suggested that there are other Republican electors who will follow Suprun in not voting for Trump. "At this point there are people who have reached out to me. Again it wouldn’t be my place to name who they are," he said, though he indicated he was talking about Republican electors.

"I am confident in saying, at this point," he continued,"I don’t think I will be the only one voting for someone other than Donald Trump who is carrying a Republican elector seat." It was not clear which former candidate would earn Suprun's vote since his choice, Ohio Governor John Kasich, has said he is not interested.

Still, Suprun is confident he will find someone: "As electors come forward, and I have had conversations with other Republican electors in particular, I think we will start discussing names specifically and see who meets the test that we could all get behind," he said.

"The point of this isn’t just to go down and raise a little ruckus it is to vote for the person we think would best be able to hold the position."

Of course, tens of millions of Americans are fairly confident that person has already been found, and are confused why Suprun believes he has the right to override the responsibility bestowed upon him by Trump's voters.

Meanwhile, Suprun says he has received both positive and negative reactions. On the positive side are people who say his actions restore their faith in the country. On the other side he has "received several twitter threats directly."

"I have been told that this type of action leads to insurrection, which I think is unfortunate," Suprun said. "There has been some backlash. Unfortunately there are some Trump backers who think violence is the answer."

Suprun had been a Trump supporter but said he "started having very serious doubts two weeks ago when on the Sunday talk shows Mr. Trump started talking about a phantom three million illegal votes, where he was attacking members of the press for exercising their first amendment rights."

"I think he is the only candidate I am aware of who ever asked a foreign country to hack his political opponent’s e mail account to find out what is in them, which I consider almost an invitation to espionage. We know he has been a demagogue. He has not attempted to unite the country. Even when Time Magazine made him their Person Of The Year they called him 'President of the Divided States of America.' And, finally, most objectively, he seems to have financial conflicts of interest which he won’t resolve."

Quoted by ABC, Suprun said he is in favor of an electoral college, but doesn’t think it should be "a rubber stamp." As he wrote in his recent New York Times article, he believes his actions fall squarely in the Hamiltonian tradition. He wrote that "the United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states' votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence."

Finally, here is a smug Supron appearing on the Tucker Carlson show defending his views and declaring that we won't find out who will be President until the "election" actually happens on December 19th.

Quote
"December 19th is when the election actually happens.  I'm actually surprised you didn't know that.  But that's when electors actually cast their ballots.  And that's when we'll find out who is President."

 

Meanwhile, many angry voters took to Twitter calling for Supron to be replaced as an elector.

Quote
#ChristopherSuprun
Your moral high horse is sickening. Stop wasting the nation's time! This is self promotion ONLY.

— Dani Taylor (@DaniEdgeH2O) December 9, 2016

Quote
#tuckercarlson suprun should be tarred and feathered.
This self absorbed elitist is a disgrace.
Remember this scumbag Christopher Supron.

— hrley (@Hrley) December 9, 2016

Quote
This idiot #ChristopherSuprun represents the votes of the people not his. Remove and replace this cowardly traitor!

— American Infidel ???? (@MakingGuns) December 6, 2016

 

It remains to be seen if his effort fizzles away and is forgotten like Jill Stein's attempt to "recount" the election away from Donald Trump.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
Guy signed a pledge didn't he? Why did he sign it if he has no intent of honoring it?

Offline corbe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,267
   His 15 minutes are up, He needs to 'follow his conscience' and Resign like the other Texas Elector did.

   This is a Constitutional mandated Vote, Do as your State told you to, or Resign.
No government in the 12,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
"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." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
"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." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson


Then why do we have them sign pledges... hell why vote at all? Every 4 years the election is just about what electors your state legislatures choose. Way easier than having these massive elections.

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
   His 15 minutes are up, He needs to 'follow his conscience' and Resign like the other Texas Elector did.

   This is a Constitutional mandated Vote, Do as your State told you to, or Resign.

The Constitution doesn't mandate it at all.  SCOTUS has never taken up the question, either.



"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." --Hamilton, Federalist 68
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar

Then why do we have them sign pledges... hell why vote at all? Every 4 years the election is just about what electors your state legislatures choose. Way easier than having these massive elections.

Why sign pledges?  Because some people want to subvert the original intent of the Framers of the Republic. Libs love doing all sorts of things regardless of original intent.

The reason pledges are allowed is that they are state pledges, and the Feds have no say in what the state requires.  SCOTUS never said that the person has to vote that way, though.

+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
Why sign pledges?  Because some people want to subvert the original intent of the Framers of the Republic. Libs love doing all sorts of things regardless of original intent.

The reason pledges are allowed is that they are state pledges, and the Feds have no say in what the state requires.  SCOTUS never said that the person has to vote that way, though.


Ok. I believe there is other law as well. COngress doesn't have to accept the results of the electors. I was reading that they have the right to dismiss electors if they don't like them?


Basically every way you look at it, Trump will be President next month.

Offline corbe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,267
The Constitution doesn't mandate it at all.  SCOTUS has never taken up the question, either.



"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." --Hamilton, Federalist 68


   I, humbly, stand corrected @Suppressed , thank you for the insight.
No government in the 12,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
If they signed a pledge they should honor it. Don't like it? Don't sign the pledge.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Many elections there have been rogue electors but never enough to make a difference other than a footnote in Wikipedia. I am sure this will be the same case this time. We'll know in a few days.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The Constitution doesn't mandate it at all.  SCOTUS has never taken up the question, either.



"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." --Hamilton, Federalist 68

Federalist 68 goes pretty in depth into it. One of the things that make us a Republic, not a direct Democracy. the elector process is to be one extra check and balance in the Presidential election process, offering the possible reset button if needed. As you've said though, it hasn't been tested and the Constitution itself isn't clear. But Federalist 68 at least gives us some insight as to why the process was put in place.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,363
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
If they signed a pledge they should honor it. Don't like it? Don't sign the pledge.
It was arguably made under duress.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
The Constitution doesn't mandate it at all.  SCOTUS has never taken up the question, either.



"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." --Hamilton, Federalist 68

I'll begin by stating that Trump will be elected and that's the end of it but there are a lot of wrongheaded claims being made about what electors must do. Electors are subject to the rules their own states put in place so declaring that all must do this or all must do that is foolish and ignorant.

People may not like it but there is a reason there are no criminal punishments handed down to those elected officials. (Delegates, electors, representatives etc.) They are not supposed to be a rubber stamp of whatever the mob of the moment wants. Its a tradition that goes back to the very first vote for or against independence from Great Britain. My distant ancestor Lyman Hall was one of those delegates who voted against the wishes of his constituents. He actually voted no to independence then changed his vote to yes. His Georgia constituents burned his house to the ground but that doesn't make him wrong.

The simple fact is that our founders in their wisdom created a system that put in place many bulwarks against the mob rule of populism and leaving delegates with the freedom of conscience is one of those bulwarks. In fact even in Great Britain at the time were voices like Edmund Burke calling for reason over populism.


HonestJohn

  • Guest

Then why do we have them sign pledges... hell why vote at all? Every 4 years the election is just about what electors your state legislatures choose. Way easier than having these massive elections.

It sounds like you are calling for direct elections and the end of the electoral college.  After all, you are objecting to it's foundational purpose.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
It sounds like you are calling for direct elections and the end of the electoral college.  After all, you are objecting to it's foundational purpose.

This is the sort of thing that even the most uneducated back country hick knew backward and forward a century ago.

A man cannot be compelled to violate his conscience. Its the same as with a juror who cannot be compelled to vote for a conviction of an obviously guilty man if his conscience tells him to acquit.

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
It sounds like you are calling for direct elections and the end of the electoral college.  After all, you are objecting to it's foundational purpose.


Sorry it sounds that way but I'm not. Electors "going rogue" would be a very bad thing.


Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar

Sorry it sounds that way but I'm not. Electors "going rogue" would be a very bad thing.

"Going rogue" is a loaded term, itself.

As originally envisioned, The People were to elect electors who were to make the choice of their own.

The "rogue" way of doing things was when The Framers' original intent was perverted to the idea that electors were just there to rubber-stamp things.  (Why even talk of electors -- actual people -- if they aren't to use independent judgement?  The Constitution could have just awarded "points" or the like.)




+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
   I, humbly, stand corrected @Suppressed , thank you for the insight.

You're very welcome, @corbe.

Your gracious words and all this talk of Alexander Hamilton remind me of an exhibit I saw a few weeks ago.  It was the correspondence between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr prior to their duel.  While your words are sincere, it was fascinating to see the polite closings ("Your obedient servant"; "Your humble servant"; etc.) between these men who would in a few weeks' time shoot at each other.

It was a sad exhibit, looking at it with hindsight.
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
"Going rogue" is a loaded term, itself.

As originally envisioned, The People were to elect electors who were to make the choice of their own.

The "rogue" way of doing things was when The Framers' original intent was perverted to the idea that electors were just there to rubber-stamp things.  (Why even talk of electors -- actual people -- if they aren't to use independent judgement?  The Constitution could have just awarded "points" or the like.)


Elector results have to be ratified by the Congress I believe though.

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean

Elector results have to be ratified by the Congress I believe though.

Nope.  Here's the entirety of what the Constitution says about electors:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

Nothing about ratification; the President of the Senate merely opens the votes and ensures they're counted (the Constitution doesn't say exactly who counts them).  Since the President of the Senate is the sitting Vice President, if he were required to ratify the vote a VP who had just lost an election (e.g., Biden) could cause all sorts of shenanigans.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,161
Nope.  Here's the entirety of what the Constitution says about electors:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

Nothing about ratification; the President of the Senate merely opens the votes and ensures they're counted (the Constitution doesn't say exactly who counts them).  Since the President of the Senate is the sitting Vice President, if he were required to ratify the vote a VP who had just lost an election (e.g., Biden) could cause all sorts of shenanigans.


http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/10/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-electoral-college/


Quote
In one case, back in 1968, Congress used its powers under federal law to decide the fate of a faithless electoral voter who voted for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon. After objections were filed in the House and Senate, both bodies voted separately to accept the vote. In 2004, the House and Senate agreed to consider a dispute over Ohio’s certificate, and both groups approved the submitted certificate in separate votes.


Congress can disquality faithless electoral voters if they want to.

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp
Guy signed a pledge didn't he? Why did he sign it if he has no intent of honoring it?

He doesn't have to like him, he just has to vote for him.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/10/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-electoral-college/



Congress can disquality faithless electoral voters if they want to.

They cannot.  In the cases you mentioned, they filed (meaningless) objections, but approved the votes anyway.  All they get to do is count the votes; they don't have any recourse to reject they if they don't like them.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!