West Virginia elector may cast protest vote against Bush or withold vote altogether - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 09-14-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004090817/

Robb's vote may not go to Bush
GOP mayor may use Electoral College
to lodge protest against president

Chris Stirewalt
Daily Mail Political Editor

Wednesday September 08, 2004

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.

Robb, long known as a maverick Republican, said he is considering using his position as one of the state's five Republican electors to protest what he believes are misguided policies of the current administration.

"It's not likely that I would vote for Kerry," Robb said. "But I'm looking at what my options are when it comes time to cast my vote."

State election law dictates that the party of the candidate who wins the popular vote for president gets to send its five electors when the Electoral College convenes in mid-December.

At their state convention in June, the members of the West Virginia Republican Party chose the top five runners-up from their gubernatorial primary to serve as electors. Robb, who finished fourth in the May primary, will be among them.

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.

There have been eight electors in American history who have chosen to go against the popular vote in their home states, including Margarette Leach of Huntington, who declined to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, even though Dukakis carried West Virginia.

Leach cast her presidential vote for Dukakis' running mate, Lloyd Bentsen instead. In 2000, one of the electors from the District of Columbia withheld her vote altogether in protest of the district's lack of statehood.

Robb said he is considering either voting for a third candidate or withholding his vote altogether.

"I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous," Robb said. "But I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction."

Fellow elector Rob Capehart was somewhat taken aback by Robb's flirtation with defection.

"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."

Capehart raised the possibility that in a very close election, every electoral vote becomes crucial. In such a case, Robb would wield great power by virtue of his willingness to defect.

"Will Richie Robb decide who the next president is?" Capehart asked. "It's more important for us to maintain an allegiance for the people of West Virginia than an allegiance to our own personal viewpoint."

Robb's complaints about Bush center on what the mayor believes was a misguided policy on Iraq and the swelling budget deficit.

"I only started to really rethink my position seriously after the accusations about Kerry's service in Vietnam, though," Robb said. "I served in Vietnam, and I think Bush's surrogates, and I think really the Bush campaign, went beyond the line with those ads."

But state GOP Chairman Kris Warner was confident that Robb would come around.

"I'm confident that he'll do the right thing," Warner said. "He's a veteran. And although he's an independent mayor of South Charleston and does things his own way, he also knows what it's like to be part of a team."

Writer Brad McElhinny contributed to this story.

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

djtestudo · 09-14-2004, 12:19 PM

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.

pan6467 · 09-14-2004, 12:23 PM

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.

Strange Famous · 09-14-2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

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.

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

Ustwo · 09-14-2004, 12:54 PM

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.

seretogis · 09-14-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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

"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.

Bill O'Rights · 09-14-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

While I think the electoral vote system has some merit, the college is outdated and should be removed.

Damn it, damn it and damn it!!!! 4 times in one week.

(Ustwo knows what I'm talking about.)
Isn't that a sign of the apocolypse, or something?

nottwood · 09-14-2004, 01:14 PM

"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.

Mephisto2 · 09-14-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

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

smooth · 09-14-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

"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.

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.

OpieCunningham · 09-14-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

The point of the electoral college was to ensure the illiterate and uneducated masses wouldn't take control of government

Well damn if that didn't totally fail.

smooth · 09-14-2004, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

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.

Rekna · 09-14-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Well damn if that didn't totally fail.

lol, yep that definatly failed!

Kadath · 09-14-2004, 03:38 PM

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.

DelayedReaction · 09-14-2004, 04:19 PM

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

irateplatypus · 09-14-2004, 05:21 PM

nope, the bull moose party got plenty of them.

Ustwo · 09-14-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

nope, the bull moose party got plenty of them.

Yes, yes they did.

pan6467 · 09-14-2004, 05:28 PM

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.

JumpinJesus · 09-14-2004, 05:35 PM

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.

Strange Famous · 09-14-2004, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

"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.

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.

smooth · 09-14-2004, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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.

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

smooth · 09-14-2004, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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.

Strange Famous, the electoral college is proportional representation.

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

Superbelt · 09-15-2004, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

nope, the bull moose party got plenty of them.

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

Glava · 09-15-2004, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

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>

Ustwo · 09-15-2004, 06:49 AM

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.

Strange Famous · 09-15-2004, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Strange Famous, the electoral college is proportional representation.

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

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.

reconmike · 09-15-2004, 09:48 AM

Man I love this map

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".

Superbelt · 09-15-2004, 10:58 AM

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.

Glava · 09-15-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Man I love this map

[image edited out]
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".

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.

smooth · 09-15-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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.

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:

Quote:

The Electoral College

As everyone knows from the 2000 election, the United States does not use a majority rule to choose the president, rather they use a more complicated system known as the Electoral College. With some calls for the abolishment of the Electoral College, let's take a look at the College from a computer science point of view and see the rather clever device our founding fathers have created.

In short the Electoral College works as follows: 538 electors are allocated to states as the sum of the senators (2 for each state) and representatives (proportional to population). In most states, each voter picks a single candidate and the candidate that wins the most votes receives all of the electoral votes for that state. The candidate winning the majority of the electoral votes becomes president. More details here.

In computer science terms (assuming two candidates), we have a weighted majority of majorites or a depth-2 neural net. It has some properties that you would want:
Monotonicity: If a candidate wins the election and more people vote for him, he will still win.
Fairness: Barring a tie, if all the votes were switched the other candidate would win.
The College does lack symmetry, a permutation of the voters could lead to a different result. Only the simple majority function has symmetry, montonicity and fairness. But symmetry is not necessary for an election scheme.

The United States is just that, a collection of fifty states each with their own laws, cultures and economies, united under some common priciples. A simple majority would have the large populations centers overwhelm the rest of the country in choosing our leader. A majority of majorities would give some states far more power than their size would dictate. So a compromise was formed, a weighted majority of majorities to give small states some but not too much influence. The fact that this process does not always agree with majority is not a bug but a feature that preserves the balance between small and big states, rural and urban America. It also keeps balance between states of the same size, an lopsided vote in California would not overwhelm a closer vote in New York.

Some things I would change in the Electoral College: Electors should be required to vote for the candidate they represent; for each state we should have a ranked voting method instead of plurality takes all; the tie-breaking rules should be changed, now they give too much power to the small states.

The winner of the World Series in baseball is not the team that scores the most runs but the team that wins the most games, a majority of majorities and most people feel it gives a better indication of the better team. Why shouldn't elections deserve a system at least as sophisticated?

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

smooth · 09-15-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

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.

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

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?

09-14-2004, 12:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	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. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

09-14-2004, 12:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-14-2004, 12:54 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-14-2004, 03:38 PM	#14 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	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. __________________ it's quiet in here

09-14-2004, 04:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	Have him vote for the Libertarian party. Wouldn't it be the first time a third party recieved an electoral vote? __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

09-14-2004, 01:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
nottwood Tilted	"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.

09-14-2004, 05:21 PM	#16 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	nope, the bull moose party got plenty of them. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-14-2004, 05:28 PM	#18 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-14-2004, 05:35 PM	#19 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

09-15-2004, 06:49 AM	#25 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-15-2004, 09:48 AM	#27 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Man I love this map 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". __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

09-15-2004, 10:58 AM	#28 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	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.