Posted on 12/12/2016 6:39:22 AM PST by kevcol
a group of Trump resisters is hoping to convince 37 Trump electors to vote for someone else on Monday, taking Trump just below the magic 270 mark. If that were to happen, Trump would not become president.
The hope is to create one of two scenarios. If rogue electors vote for candidates other than Hillary Clinton, who won 232 electoral votes on Election Day, then no candidate would have 270 and the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. If the 37, plus one more, voted for Clinton, she would reach 270 and become president.
"This election is not in the books," said Chris Suprun, a Texas Republican elector who says he will not vote for Trump, at a news conference Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
That clown from Texas,Suprun just exposed himself as a fraud.
For days he said his mind was made up to vote against Trump,now he gloms onto the phony news article in the post and Times that the Russians hacked the election and the idiot jumps right on the phony story and says he is not going to cast a vote for the Kremlin.
This guy is an ass,the story says NOTHING ABOUT THE KRELIN DOING ANY HACKING,your trying to hard Suprun
Well, no, they didn't. They voted for a slate of Electors who pledged to vote for the Republican candidate. This guy is reneging on that pledge, and should be blackballed from the GOP from now on.
But, this is also the base rejection of the "Hillary won the popular vote" meme, because neither Hillary nor Trump, nor any other Presidential candidate won a single vote anywhere. What people were voting on were slates of Electors, and in most States the Electors were decided on 50%+1 margins. Any "popular vote" over 50% is meaningless for any particular State, which is why Hillary's numbers in California are meaningless. She got all 55 CA Electors already.
If anybody is being "disenfranchised" by the current "winner take all" set up, it's folks like the 30% or so GOP voters in CA, who saw 100% of the California Electors go to a single candidate.
Does Texas have a “faithless elector law”?
No formal law, but that doesn’t mean the GOP can’t drive him out of any Party function or position for going back on his pledge.
They need one!
Though such laws have never “ constitutionally” validated!
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.