TexasCHLforum.com

highrez58 wrote:The electoral college allows the smaller states to have a say in the election. If we didn't have the present system, Hillary would be our president-elect.

Sure, but notice that there are "electors", not just a number of votes on paper depending on the number in a state's representation in Congress. Maybe the founders also hoped the electors would use their conscience and their likely-to-be better informed, more objective judgment. i.e. maybe the founders really were favoring "the establishment"...

Here's what I don't understand - how is this guy an elector? It sounds like the process is as basic as he was selected by the Texas Republican party, and as far back as August he was saying that he wouldn't vote for Trump. So you'd think that there would have been some sort of a thought about why he was an elector.

I found this article interesting: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/ ... l-college/

Electors are selected by the delegates to the Republican and Democratic state party conventions in the summer leading up to a presidential convention. Following their election, Republican electors agree to sign an affidavit committing to vote for the party’s nominee if that nominee carries the statewide vote for president/vice-president.

“All of the electors signed the affidavit,” Republican Party of Texas spokesman Michael Joyce told Breitbart Texas via an email response. He said the electors cast their votes individually for the nominee during a December meeting of the Texas caucus in the Texas House of Representatives Chamber.

Glockster wrote:Here's what I don't understand - how is this guy an elector? It sounds like the process is as basic as he was selected by the Texas Republican party, and as far back as August he was saying that he wouldn't vote for Trump. So you'd think that there would have been some sort of a thought about why he was an elector.

I found this article interesting: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/ ... l-college/

Electors are selected by the delegates to the Republican and Democratic state party conventions in the summer leading up to a presidential convention. Following their election, Republican electors agree to sign an affidavit committing to vote for the party’s nominee if that nominee carries the statewide vote for president/vice-president.

“All of the electors signed the affidavit,” Republican Party of Texas spokesman Michael Joyce told Breitbart Texas via an email response. He said the electors cast their votes individually for the nominee during a December meeting of the Texas caucus in the Texas House of Representatives Chamber.

I went through the process in 2008. Basically the district you reside in votes on electors. You move up from the precinct 'convention' to state convention (which i attended) to the national convention - you are elected all the way. Electors attend the RNC national convention where a nominee is selected for the presidential run.
At the state convention, my district asked me to 'run' for elector and go to the national convention, but I supported Ron Paul so I declined. They even promised to raise enough money for me to make the trip to Florida!
It's really pretty easy to become an elector and the only punishment is for lying on a sworn affidavit. Maybe jail time and a fine. If someone else pays the fine and a lawyer defends him pro bono, what does he have to lose? I'd say not much.
but i could be wrong.

If they signed a legal document promising to vote one way, Seems as though we could sue them for breach of contract. Get a lien on their home and future earnings.

Liberty wrote:If they signed a legal document promising to vote one way, Seems as though we could sue them for breach of contract. Get a lien on their home and future earnings.

Really? Were you a party to the contract? Have you experienced direct monetary damage?

Apparently he's getting help from Van Jones.

Nice vetting!

philip964 wrote:Apparently he's getting help from Van Jones.

Nice vetting!

Yes, I posted this in a different thread.

Leftist pigs in disguise.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12 ... -progress/

SewTexas wrote:this article is saying that there is a push for them to vote for Kasich. Kasich needs to come out and tell the voters to vote faithfully, that this movement isn't right.

So Kasich could get more EC votes than he got popular votes in the primary?

Think this might be a ploy so he could at least say he got someone other than his parents to vote for him this election cycle?

philip964 wrote:Apparently he's getting help from Van Jones.

Nice vetting!

Wow. This stuff is stranger than fiction.

mojo84 wrote:

philip964 wrote:Apparently he's getting help from Van Jones.

Nice vetting!

Wow. This stuff is stranger than fiction.

if it was attempted in a novel the editor would tell the author it wouldn't work, it's too unbelievable.

Based upon this new evidence of the "Republican" elector being in cahoots with the opposition, the Texas Republican Party should strip his elector status and replace him with someone who will fulfill their duty to vote for the candidate who won the state.

bblhd672 wrote:Based upon this new evidence of the "Republican" elector being in cahoots with the opposition, the Texas Republican Party should strip his elector status and replace him with someone who will fulfill their duty to vote for the candidate who won the state.

can they do that? would that basically be a recall? is there time?

I predict that by the end of this session our electors will be bound.

SewTexas wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

philip964 wrote:Apparently he's getting help from Van Jones.

Nice vetting!

Wow. This stuff is stranger than fiction.

if it was attempted in a novel the editor would tell the author it wouldn't work, it's too unbelievable.

The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction must make sense.

SewTexas wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Based upon this new evidence of the "Republican" elector being in cahoots with the opposition, the Texas Republican Party should strip his elector status and replace him with someone who will fulfill their duty to vote for the candidate who won the state.

can they do that? would that basically be a recall? is there time?

I think they have until the 13th to change the lineup.

Alf wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Based upon this new evidence of the "Republican" elector being in cahoots with the opposition, the Texas Republican Party should strip his elector status and replace him with someone who will fulfill their duty to vote for the candidate who won the state.

can they do that? would that basically be a recall? is there time?

I think they have until the 13th to change the lineup.

cool, then they need to do that, there should be alternates ready to take his place