Skip to comments.
Republican Elector Says He Will Switch Vote If Bush Wins His State
Talon News ^
| October 22, 2004
| Jimmy Moore
Posted on 10/22/2004 6:18:50 AM PDT by Ginifer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
1
posted on
10/22/2004 6:18:50 AM PDT
by
Ginifer
To: Ginifer
2
posted on
10/22/2004 6:19:44 AM PDT
by
50sDad
( ST3d - Star Trek Tri-D Chess! http://my.oh.voyager.net/~abartmes)
To: Ginifer
So, how can this little tyrant be removed before he can damage the Republic?
Dan
3
posted on
10/22/2004 6:20:15 AM PDT
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: Ginifer
He should be removed and an elector.
4
posted on
10/22/2004 6:20:31 AM PDT
by
Bikers4Bush
(Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
To: Ginifer
I've always known this is a possibility--but what would happen if enough electors switched votes to throw the election to the other candidate?
(I know, fat chance. Would there be any legal recourse?)
5
posted on
10/22/2004 6:20:35 AM PDT
by
Calico Cat
(the simplest solution is usually the correct one)
To: Ginifer
Great. Now they're appointing RINOs as Electors.
6
posted on
10/22/2004 6:20:52 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Proud Member of FreeRepublic 's "Pyjama-Hadeen")
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: Ginifer
Isn't this the same story from 4 years ago?
To: Ginifer
I heard this twit on talk radio several months ago. Looks like he's still a twit!
9
posted on
10/22/2004 6:21:18 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Ignorance, bigotry, envy, and gluttony are floor joists in the democratic platform.)
To: Calico Cat
Perahps not a "legal" recourse, but there would be a recourse.
10
posted on
10/22/2004 6:21:39 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: Ginifer
And if he dares to attempt to switch his vote he can be sued for everything he's worth by the people he has disenfranchised.
Something he should consider before running his cake hole or doing anything rash.
11
posted on
10/22/2004 6:21:50 AM PDT
by
Bikers4Bush
(Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
To: Ginifer
"There is an implied duty to vote for your party's candidate," Robb explained to the Associated Press. "But I don't think it's an explicit duty or responsibility." There is a duty, however, to take into consideration that we are at war and there is only one candidate who can deliver victory. It's not Senator Kerry. Mr. Robb, you may have just sealed your own political future but perhaps not in a way you have envisioned.
To: Ginifer
Explaining his decision to change his vote as an elector, Robb said he is a "principled elector" who has "qualified discretion" about who he chooses regardless of who the people of his state decide should get the votes for president.
He needs to be replaced......regardless of who the people of his state decided? That is not "respresentative republic" thinking. Sounds like a dim to me.
To: Ginifer
"How to get your a$$ kicked" by Richie Robb
14
posted on
10/22/2004 6:22:13 AM PDT
by
smith288
(Teresa Heinz thinks stay at home moms arent "real" workers. Tell my wife that.)
To: Ginifer
15
posted on
10/22/2004 6:22:19 AM PDT
by
paladinan
(Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
To: Ginifer
Great. Now they're appointing RINOs as Electors.
16
posted on
10/22/2004 6:22:37 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Proud Member of FreeRepublic 's "Pyjama-Hadeen")
To: Ginifer
I wonder if this guy can get to the city border before the villagers get there?
17
posted on
10/22/2004 6:22:49 AM PDT
by
4everontheRight
(John Kerry - Serving the UN, not the US)
To: Ginifer
I believe this nutjob is correct about his obligation as an elector. He doesn't have to vote for his party's candidate. What a bazoo!
18
posted on
10/22/2004 6:23:05 AM PDT
by
RexBeach
(Before God makes you greedy, he makes you stupid.)
To: Ginifer
19
posted on
10/22/2004 6:23:49 AM PDT
by
Fruitbat
To: Ginifer
Explaining his decision to change his vote as an elector, Robb said he is a "principled elector" who has "qualified discretion" about who he chooses regardless of who the people of his state decide should get the votes for president. Why even have polls? All we need is "principled electors"! This is a Baathist thing to do, not representative.
20
posted on
10/22/2004 6:23:55 AM PDT
by
smith288
(Teresa Heinz thinks stay at home moms arent "real" workers. Tell my wife that.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson