West Virginia GOP Elector Robb's Vote May Not Go To Bush

Charleston Daily Mail ^ | September 8, 2004 | Chris Stirewalt

[atomicpossum]

Good luck getting party money when you run for re-election, Zippy.

[NJ_gent]

"There is ZERO chance that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold a STATE law that strips an elected FEDERAL officer holder of his or her discretion."

The SCOTUS has had the chance to strike down or speak against such laws in the past, but has declined to do so. Some have argued that Congress would have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce a state law barring faithless electors. In any case, Congress can still simply disregard the vote as 'irregular'. William Ross did an article around the 2000 election on this very topic. It's over here.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Presidential elector is a Federal office. There is ZERO chance that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold a STATE law that strips an elected FEDERAL officer holder of his or her discretion.----

The Constitution doesn't require electors to vote a certain way, that's true. However, it does not revoke the states' discretion to require its electors to obey the outcome of elections.

-Dan

[mystery-ak]

..sounds like he wants something...

[Indie]

For what it's worth:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html

"faithless electors" who defect from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace.

The main danger of faithless electors is that the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of a majority in the electoral college and could lose the election on a technicality. This prospect becomes more probable when there are third-party or independent candidates who could negotiate with electors before they vote.

Many see the apportioning of the electoral college votes by states as a basic flaw, because it gives each of the smaller states at least three electoral votes, even though on a straight population basis some might be entitled to only one or two.

Critics of the system also argue that the possibility that an election could be thrown into the House of Representatives is undemocratic. In such a case each state has a single vote, which gives the sparsely populated or small states equal weight with more populous states such as California or New York. The two occasions when it occurred (1800 and 1824) were marked by charges of "deals" and "corrupt bargains." In any event, giving each state one vote in the House of Representatives regardless of the number of people represented is not consistent with the widely accepted concept of one-person-one-vote. Also, one vote per state in the House of Representatives may not necessarily result in a choice that replicates the electoral vote winner in that state in November.

Those who argue in favor of retaining the present system state that there is too much uncertainty over whether any other method would be an improvement. They point out that many of the complaints about the electoral college apply just as well to the Senate and, to some extent, to the House. They fear that reform could lead to the dismantling of the federal system.

Abolishing the EC in favor of pure mob rule is NOT what the Founders had in mind. This is also the same reason why we should never allow an election to go to Congree for a decision.

A flawed system, but mob rule is not the answer. Perhaps EC votes should automatically go to the winner and take the human [CORRUPTIBLE..i.e. MAYOR RICHIE BOBB (!)] element out of it?

[Katya]

I have no problem with his using his vote as a protest...but only if it isn't that close. Sorry, but this is a bit different than making noise at the opposing parties convention.

[Pilsner]

Imagine if a State passed a law that said that a Congresscritter could not switch parties, and that he had to vote for the nomineee of his parties caucus for Speaker / Majority Leader. Would that be upheld? No. what is the difference? What's more, the whole purpose of the Electoral College is to isolate the selection of the President from the popular vote.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Imagine if a State passed a law that said that a Congresscritter could not switch parties, and that he had to vote for the nomineee of his parties caucus for Speaker / Majority Leader.----

Irrelevant comparisons, since neither example has to do with the conduct of statewide elections.

-Dan

[Murph]

The Founding Fathers did not completely trust the electorate.

It probably/hopefully won't be a close race, but if it were -- could the Dems in their utter desparation attempt to "sway" individual electors and tip the scales? /nightmare mode off

[aruanan]

"It's not likely that I would vote for Kerry," Robb said. "But I'm looking at what my options are when it comes time to cast my vote."

I wonder what he'll be thinking about options-wise when angry West Virginians are tarring and feathering him and riding him out of town on a rail. Ahhh, for the days when people could still do that and it was thought appropriate.

[NH Liberty]

"Why is it that when a Republican goes against his party he is a "maverick", and Zell Miller is a "turncoat?""

Excellent point, dfwgator.

[Sloth]

How did he get made an Elector?

[mabelkitty]

Let's get those phone records and connect some dots - Kerry was in West Virginia a few hours before this guy made this statement?? Did he receive a visit from Kerry's traveling Sheet Metal Union thugs?
I want to know.

[Conservative til I die]

It's not against the law.

[Conservative til I die]

It doesn't undermine democracy. We don't live in a democracy. This is how the FF intended it.

BTW, did you have a problem when one of the DC electors refused to cast her ballot to Gore, over a protest about DC not having Congressional representation?

[mountaineer]

Richie Robb is a wingnut. I've met him and even sat next to him at a Lincoln Day dinner (not by choice). He's doing this solely to aggravate the WVGOP, which seems to be his only reason for living. At every statewide meeting of Republicans, he mounts a one-man campaign to push through proposals no one wants, wasting the time of everyone in attendance. I should rephrase: 95 percent of the reason he's doing this is his dislike for the WVGOP and Kris Warner; the other 5 percent is for the attention. He has problems.

[TaxRelief]

How did he get chosen as an elector?