Posted on 12/19/2016 9:42:45 AM PST by xzins
State Rep. Christina Hagan, R-Marlboro Township, indicated that she will resign as a presidential elector after two residents over the weekend filed an emergency lawsuit alleging that the Ohio Constitution prohibits a state legislator from serving as a presidential elector.
“It is unfortunate that the extreme left has engaged in what is the most obvious display of partisan and extreme political bullying that can occur,” said a post on Hagan’s Facebook page late Sunday night. “I however will gladly resolve any potential frivolous lawsuits from moving forward by resigning my opportunity to Chair and cast a vote as a member of the Electoral College in order to ensure no delay in the official election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dispatch.com ...
Not only not guilty, but I think I’m in love!!
Hillary lost more electors than any candidate in 104 years.
That is humiliating.
I wouldn’t count votes against deceased candidates (the incumbent GOP VP in 1912, Greeley in 1872) as true faithless electors, I think it’s proper to vote for living candidates.
Fact is 5 faithless is the most EVER for a living Presidential candidate. In fact I think the record before this year was indeed 1.
For living VP candidates who lost more than that you have to go back to 1896 and I think that was due to fusion voting with the populists.
So for true pure faithlessness you gotta go back to 1836, VP Richard Johnson failed to get a majority and had to be elected by the Senate.
Hillary is highly likely to hold this record for the rest of her life, if not forever.
If I were an elector in 1864, I’d have been faithless on the VP front, replacing Hannibal “The Animal” Hamlin with rat Andrew Johnson was a mistake, war schmore, the VP has 2 jobs and it doesn’t serve to have someone from the other party no matter the circumstances.
Good job, thanks.
In 1808, six Democratic-Republican electors (all from NY IIRC)cast their presidential EVs for VP nominee George Clinton instead of for presidential nominee James Madison; three of them voted for James Monroe for VP, but the other three voted for Madison for VP. Still, that was six faithless Madison electors.
In the 19th century, there were numerous instances in which many electors, and sometimes entire state slates of electors, voted for a different VP candidate than the one on the ticket, and it wasn’t always the case that the state party had nominated a different ticket. For example, in that 1836 election that you mentioned, VA’s entire slate of Democrat electors—I think that it was 23 in total—voted for William Smith instead of for VP nominee Richard M. Johnson because Johnson had an octoroon (1/8th black) mistress and they refused to vote for someone that practiced “miscegenation.” You’ll find a lot more instances of faithless electors on the VP side.
In 1896, the reason why two states (CA and KY IIRC) cast a single presidential EV for Bryan but the rest for McKinley is that those states (and many others in those days) elected the presidential electors individually and, with McKinley’s margin in the district being so close, one of the Bryan electors in each state was able to get elected. There also was a large number of Democrat electors voting for Thomas Watson instead of for Arthur Sewall for VP, and I believe that you are right that it was due to Democrat-Populist fusion electors.
Once again the original headline is written as to make it unclear who was “bullying” the elector.
The U.S. Constitution does not say that no person getting paid by the U.S. government can be a presidential elector, it says that no Senator, Representative, or a “person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States,” may serve as an elector. An office of trust or profit, sometimes spelled out as an office of honor, trust or profit, refers to officers of the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. It does not include *former* presidents not currently holding a federal office, even if they receive a government pension (just as it does not include persons receiving Social Security payments, veteran’s benefits, etc.).
One wonders why voters never seem to figure out that this very same tyrannical smashing of dissenters will (sooner rather than later) also apply to them if Democrat were to continue in power.
She already voted yesterday, right? So what does the left hope to accomplish?
We got all of Ohio’s 18 votes for Trump, so she stepped aside for one of the alternates, or she voted herself. I don’t know what the final result was with her.
WB “FAITH SPOTTED EAGLE” and tell her my name is “Impy” from Skokie.
A very strange end to a very strange (in a good way ultimately) year.
Drat, I didn’t know about the 6 electors in 1808.
I guess Hillary has to settle for 2nd place again. ;D
BTW the Texas elector that voted for Ron Paul has been identified as South Texas College Poly Sci Professor Bill Greene.
Have you noticed? A lot of people are like mad *at the year 2016* because Trump won and Brexit won and (insert name of celeb they liked) died. Do a twitter search for (f word) 2016. SMH
I didn’t know about 1808 either.
I saw where two faithless electors in one place or another were fined $1000 each. Penalties should be much higher. I like New Mexico’s felony law.
I like Michigan’s law, a faithless vote is invalid and constitutes a resignation, other electors fill the vacancy.
Though I would allow exceptions, eg if the VP nom dies or something it’s perfectly fine for the candidate to name a new one and have the electors vote for them.
Ugh.
No toothpaste?
Again...the cleansing must occur...
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.