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

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

[Bonaventure]

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said today he may vote against George W. Bush in the Electoral College, even if the president carries West Virginia's popular vote.

Robb, long known as a maverick Republican, said he is considering using his position as one of the state's five Republican electors to protest what he believes are misguided policies of the current administration.

"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."

[SlickWillard]

I have lots of Democratic friends that were in hysterics and I maintained that the framers wanted a republic and that the Electoral College selects the President.

If this elector in WV goes against the wishes of his State or Bush wins the Popular vote but loses the Electoral Vote I will have to remain consistent in my opinion.

Yeah, but if you're gonna follow the framers, then you also get to draw and quarter the son of a bitch and hang his entrails out for the buzzards to eat.

[kcvl]

To contact us by mail:

West Virginia Republican Party
PO Box 2711
Charleston, WV 25330

Visit us at:

5019 MacCorkle Avenue SW
South Charleston, WV 25303

Or you can contacts us by phone, fax, and email:

304-768-0493 (office)
304-768-6083 (fax)

wvgop@wvgop.org (email)

[kcvl]

South Charleston City of: Ofc
601 Jefferson Rd
Charleston, WV 25309
(304) 744-4731


******

Mayor Richard Robb

City of South Charleston
Phone: 744-5301 - Ext. 110
Email: RobbHaus1@aol.com

[My2Cents]

Whoa. I wonder if that teeshirt was purchased at the Lee Harvey Oswald Museum.

[samanella]

This guy's picture is on the front page of the Daily Mail's website dancing with Jesse Jackson. 'Nuff said.

[go-ken-go]

His views must have been known; why in heck would he voted an elector??

[Servant of the 9]

Somebody Get A Rope!

So9

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LOL!!!

[Flux Capacitor]

----My only point was that Constitutionally the Electors are not Bound to vote for the same person or party that their constituents voted for.----

In 26 states, they are, but otherwise, you're right; this West Virgina elector is entirely within his rights to cast his ballot for whomever he wishes.

That isn't the point, though, and was not the foundation of the Republicans' pro-electoral college stance in 2000 (and before and since). The point is that for an elector to vote contrary to the the outcome of the election in his state, regardless of whether he can do so or not, is a betrayal of the people of that state. There's a reason that 26 states have laws binding the electors to vote for their party's candidate -- and while it may be legal in the other 24, the practice is still very, very unethical.

I did not think it was right in 2000 when that D.C. delegate withheld her electoral vote. Yes, she was within her rights to do so (I think), but it was also a rebuke of the wishes of D.C. voters -- and if the other two delegates had also chosen to withhold their votes, then the voters of D.C. would have been truly disenfranchised -- as a pracitical, if not a legal manner -- because their votes for President would have been rendered completely irrelevant. (It is ironic, then, that the abstaining D.C. delegate withheld her vote in order to protest the District's lack of representation in Congress.)

Likewise, if all of the West Virginia delegates (I cannot believe that the state GOP simply chose the gubernatorial runner-ups) follow Robb's lead and decide "what the hell, even if Bush wins our state, we're not gonna vote for him", then the Bush voters of West Virginia have just had their ballots for President negated. They might as well just sleep in on November 2nd.

And again, there was no comparable sentiment on the Republican side in 2000; no organized campaign to get Gore electors to switch their vote to Bush. Exactly the opposite, as I recall.

-Dan

[StoneFury]

Hey Mr. Robb, thanks for the heads up.

[California Patriot]

I hope our state parties were very careful picking
electors. Apparently in West Virginia, they weren't.
We can't afford any more mistakes.

[ArrogantBustard]

I hear banjo music ....

[comebacknewt]

Most 269-269 tie scenarios have WV going to Jaques Kerry.

It could be as simple as losing NH and NV and everything else staying the same.

That makes a 269 - 269 tie where the unfaithful WV elector could over-ride the will of the American people.

[Fedora]

Conan:

Lothar, you speak wisdom, by Crom!

[Brilliant]

I wonder, though, how they feel about electors who announce in advance that they don't care how the voters vote?

[WOSG]

WOW ... I PREDICTED THAT IF THERE WAS A 269-269 tie (possible if you split the swing states a certain way) THE MEDIA/DEMS WOULD TRY TO STIR SOMETHING UP. A WEEK LATER, THIS HAPPENED.
.... JEEEZ.

[Bonaventure]

I'm inclined to agree with all the posters who have said that this guy is just trying for his 15 minutes of fame. I don't think he'd cast his vote against Bush in a scenario in which his vote meant something.

[Pilsner]

----My only point was that Constitutionally the Electors are not Bound to vote for the same person or party that their constituents voted for.

In 26 states, they are,

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.

[NJ_gent]

"I wonder, though, how they feel about electors who announce in advance that they don't care how the voters vote?"

There's certainly plenty of time for West Virginia to add a faithless elector law to their books before election day. Should that happen, this guy may want to think twice. I do believe some faithless elector laws call for jail time for violators.

[DoughtyOne]

The framers may have allowed this, but it's my take that they'd ahve sooner committed harry carry than subvert the will of the electorate. Electoral votes are bound in principle by the free votes of the people.

If we're talking treason or some other issue that could surface after an election, then of course, the electoral vote should reflect that IMO. Otherwise Robb should bind that electoral vote as a solemn duty commensurate with the honor given him to cast the electoral vote.

This isn't about him and he should have understood that before agreeing to take the position.