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

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

[Theodore R.]

I don't think he would be related to former Senator Chuck Robb, D-VA. Robert C. Byrd is not related to the Byrds of VA.

[Conservative til I die]

As of 2000, in 24 states it is legal to not vote according to the popular vote.

And as a historical note, it has happened in recent history:

2000 - One DC elector abstains from casting her vote, which likely would have gone to Al Gore (notice that Bush won 271-266, not 271-267, as was bandied about in all the election scenarios). This was done as a protest of DC's lack of Congressional representation.

1988 - One WV (interesting, no?) elector cast his vote for Bentsen-Dukakis, rather than Dukakis-Bentsen.

1976 - One WA elector casts his vote for a Ronald Reagan-Bob Dole ticket. Gerald Ford actually won this state.

1972 - One VA elector oddly enough casts his vote for John Hospers of the Libertarian Party, who managed to pull in a cool 0.00% of the popular vote with 3,674 votes. Interestingly enough, Hospers didn't actually receive any votes in VA itself. I can only assume he was not on the ballot. Nixon actually won this state. I just checked and the elector actually became the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1976. LOL.

[Republican Wildcat]

It would depend on West Virginia law. Nothing could stop him from doing it, but he could be prosecuted for doing it depending on West Virginia law.

[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.----

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

Statewide? I don't know about W. Virginny, but in Texas electors are selected by House District, in the State Convention of each Party. The two electors that represent the our two Senators are picked by the COnvention ata large. There is no mandate that a State award Elecotrs based on state wide results, and Maine, for one, does not. Two electors are selected at large and the rest are awarded by House of Representative Distirct.

[Agrarian]

I find this "Bush really won the popular vote without the fraud" argument quite silly. The final tally is the final tally, and Bush lost. If you add in the Nader votes, Bush really lost to the liberals in the popular vote.

Perhaps there really WERE millions of fraudulent votes cast nationwide, and perhaps Bush "really" won the popular vote, but this is an exercise in whining that is worthy of Democrats, not of Republicans.

Given the fact that the party has put on no nationwide push to reform the electoral system to prevent fraud, I can only assume that either:

a. There is no massive fraud on the scale that is claimed by many.

b. The GOP has decided that the political costs of fighting fraud on a large scale are too high, and that they are better off just against a stacked deck in every election, or

c. The GOP has spineless, stupid, or incompetent leadership.

Whatever the case may be, grousing about fraud has all the practical value (and legitimacy) of any other useless speculation.

I personally feel that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and that there is some voter fraud -- enough to swing a very tight race (a few thousand per state) to the Dems. I think that the GOP has calculated that the extent of the fraud (and the urban areas where it happens) is not enough to be worth the political flak they would take.

i.e. the party leadership has made a calculated decision to just work against the stacked deck, and accept it. Since they accept it, it is a bit unseemly for us to be whining about it and claiming that we "really" won this race or that. And again, unless you're actually going to DO something about it in the next election, it's all pretty pointless. Leave that song and dance to the Sore/Loserman crowd...

[willyboyishere]

ANY relation to Lynda Bird Johnsons husband Chuck Robb?
Guy looks like he wants to be the Pubbie version of Zell Miller, probably for no other reason than the proverbial 15 minutes of political notoriety

[Conservative til I die]

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.

But then again, why even allow for such a situation if the intent is to follow the will of the electorate to the most absolute degree?

I'm guessing extreme situations. Can't think of one that might reasonably happen, but say somehow an Adolf Hitler type got the nomination of one party (Dem of course) and somehow managed to win the vote. Reasonable electors might then be able to stop his election from happening.

[GOP_Proud]

Richie has won re-election as Mayor of South Charleston for a slew of terms and has performed miracles for the city financally and in terms of growth. For that he gets kudos, but he has always been a bit loopy on most conservative issues. He's a very likeable guy and most have been willing to overlook a lot.

I was born and raised in SC and now live across the river. My sister graduated with Ritchie. My dad and Richie's dad were very active in Republican party politics back when being a R in WV was dangerous to your health. They were great friends. Leonard Robb is rolling in his grave today over his son's actions on Labor Day.

I think that even the faithful are turned off by this stunt. Stating he may not vote for Bush is one thing, but hand-in-hand with Jessie is the death knell.

[Flux Capacitor]

I'm not talking about the selection of electors -- whom, the Constitution says, the states may pick in the manner they see fit -- or of the apportionment of electoral votes, which is also up to the states.

I am talking simply about the actual ballot for president cast by the electors, and of the states' power to hold them accountable if they vote against the wishes of the popular majority in those respective states. I say the states have the right to require their electors to respect the will of the people; there is no Constitutional prohibition of this, and the Supreme Court has never taken up the issue.

-Dan

[TYVets]

"small-town politicians come around before they get turned around."

Small town politicians come around before they get tarred and feathered.

[Brilliant]

No because DC is not a state.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Conan O'Brien:

Why do people keep making fun of my name???

[willyboyishere]

Thanks for the reply on WV/SC politics: should've known there was no relation to the early/mid 60s Dem subdynasty of Johnson/Robb---a Dem family with that much heavy baggage would probably never allow itself to be in a position to draw that much attention to itself. But the guy still does look like he's in the Jeffords/Zell Miller tradition of party=changers, who always draw attention to the degree that they might be important in majority decisions.

[Fedora]

Arthur Conan Doyle:

Get in line!

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Hmmm...

Not as bad as some folks.

Social Security Administration

Among the top 1,000 names for children born in 2003, no names similiar to Gerard were found.

[Fedora]

Gil Gerard:

What's wrong with Gerard?

[mountainfolk]

The mayor should be asked to resign his elector position by the state Republican party that chose him. Undoubtedly, his political life is now over if he has depended on Republican votes to get elected. He has proved himself untrustworthy and therefore useless to the party. By 'options' he must mean the RAT party has given him another choice not involving honor. His not voting for Pres Bush is a vote for Kerry, however you slice it.

[Indie]

Bobb hates the GOP, but found it quite convenient as a coattail to his own election as mayor..

[Dawgreg]

I love your optimism Cents! I agree!

[Donna Lee Nardo]

The lamestream media would simply say you are learning to speak their language. ;)

They are bastards, aren't they? Hope I can write that! That word is in the dictionary.