West Virginia elector may cast protest vote against Bush or withold vote altogether
 

Once again, I'm not sure whether it's a genuine political move or "Look at meeeee! I'm on TV!"

I think it's important that the electors can make this choice, especially if they have so little faith in their party's candidate. Maybe we'll get a single electoral vote for a third party this year. It'd be nice, but I doubt it's going to happen

I'm split on this, I think.

On the one hand, this was granted in the Constitution as part of the electoral college. I think that it is his right to do what he wishes to do with it, since no law limits him.

However, if I were the West Virginia Republican Party, I would be doing everything possible at this point to remove him from his post as elector, because he isn't doing what is in the best interest of the party.

It's probably a matter of political favors. Robb felt Bush promised him something and didn't come through.

I agree with DJ either W. Va. Gop will get him out of there OR Bush and him will work some back room deal. Either way, the vote will go to Bush, provided he wins W. Va.

I think he see's his first duty to the people, not The Party.

While I think the electoral vote system has some merit, the college is outdated and should be removed. This crops up every election, and goes against the spirit of the system.

"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."

The point of an Electoral College is to represent the people of a state, not to use our election process as a means of "protesting." He should shut up and do his job like the rest of us.

Damn it, damn it and damn it!!!! 4 times in one week. :mad: (Ustwo knows what I'm talking about.)
Isn't that a sign of the apocolypse, or something?

"Robb, who said he might reconsider if Bush changed his foreign and domestic policy priorities, said he is researching his options under state law."

"There is no provision in the West Virginia code that controls what an elector does at the Electoral College or provides any punishment for faithless electors."

Politics: the art of doing dirty things legally.

I'm surprised Ustwo. I had assumed from another thread that you were a supporter of the electoral college.

What do you think would be a good replacement?


Mr Mephisto

The point of the electoral college was to ensure the illiterate and uneducated masses wouldn't take control of government and rule it by majority at the expense of what more sophisticated citizens would deem more appropriate for the course of the nation.

Well damn if that didn't totally fail.

haha, I should've mentioned that I gleaned my comment from a Noam Chomsky book, Rogue States: The Use of Force in World Affairs.

(Here: http://www.southendpress.org/books/rogue.shtml

and an excerpt here:

http://www.southendpress.org/books/rogueexc.shtml)

So anyone can now feel free to discount his interpretation if it doesn't jibe with their version of history--it won't offend me.

lol, yep that definatly failed!

I love the idea of electoral votes going by district instead of by state.

As for the elector: it's his right, as listed in the Constitution, to vote for whomever he deems best suited to be the President. That's why I want the Electoral College out.

Have him vote for the Libertarian party. Wouldn't it be the first time a third party recieved an electoral vote?

nope, the bull moose party got plenty of them.

:D

Yes, yes they did.

It's funny this is W. Va. one of my Profs. was discussing how Bush won and he said it wasn't Florida, it was west Virginia because the NRA spent millions in that state on horrific ads telling them that if Gore were elected he'd take away their guns. West Virginia then said, we are a Dem state but we want our guns and so.... Bush was elected.

I'd have to agree. This is where the electoral college comes in. The smallest state with just 5 votes can decide an election.

Funny how there are some Bush supporters speaking out against the EC, had it not been for the EC Gore would be running for re-election, not Bush.

I never liked the Electoral College. I think the electoral votes should be split to reflect the popular vote of each state. It'd make it more interesting.

Robb clearly understands that the real will and interests of the people are not always represented accurately through the capitalistic method of "free" election ;)

And I agree the system is fundamentally outdated and unfair... the president who gets the most votes over the country should be elected, only true proportional representation is fair.

It can be, and two states use alternative methods to the winner takes all scenario: Maine and Nebraska.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

Strange Famous, the electoral college is proportional representation.

The other way we could have proportional representation is increase the House.

And Ross Perot won Texas in '92. I think that was his only state though.

Bush 41 won Texas. Perot didn't win any states. Can any mod make this image smaller, please?

edit: yup
<img src="http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/2/29/ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png" width=800>

I have no problem with the electoral VOTE system. I think it keeps things a bit more fair across the country. I'd hate to see a system where one day having a 80% vote in a couple of high population states meant you didn't to have win a majority in any other place in the country. Right now the whole country is pretty well split, but things change. I think that the current system is fundamentally sound.

I think the delegate thing is outdated though. This isn't the 1700's anymore and we don't need to send people across the state and country in person to tell them who we voted for. Its an unnecessary middle man that always brings up controversy every election for no point other then to bring up controversy. Also if you wished to bribe someone in a close election, its a weak link.

I'm sorry, but it isnt. It is the election of representatives

PR means that every vote has equal weight towards the end result, or as far as possible. If you live in Texas it doesnt really matter so much how you vote, it is a clear Rep win.. if you live in Florida your vote is more important... this is unfair. The person who has the most votes cast for them should be president.

Man I love this map :D
http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/e2000map.jpg
I do not want the cities of the country controling it.
The EC is just fine, the only thing that should be changed is that the state's delegates should be automatic, win the state get the votes.
It will keep rogues like Robb from "protesting".

I don't want the cities of the country controlling it either. But neither do I want the countryside controlling it either. All those pretty little red squares actually make the people who are squatting in them more powerfully electorally than the people sitting in the cities (which are almost always blue) The electoral college gives added weight to sparsely populated areas and that isn't right.
One man one vote. If you don't like being ignored move somewhere where there are people.

You can love that map all you want, but just because there's a lot of red on the map doesn't mean that the majority voted Republican. Democrats shouldn't be penalized just because more of their supports live in cities.

Strange Famous, I know what proportional voting is. The electoral college is proportional voting; but don't take my word for it, here's an explication of how that might be:

-- http://fortnow.com/lance/complog/200...l-college.html

Hey man, if you don't like your vote counting less than those in the country, move over there! :D

Seriously though, rural votes are not more powerful than urban votes in the way that you imply. I have access to other articles that describe how the EC creates weighted votes. Was the one I posted above sufficient to describe how the process occurs, or should I find one that describes the actual vote to vote relationship?