3 Electoral College members may pass on GOP ticket

[torchbearer]

The way I read it the electors are there as representatives of their state, not for their own purposes. I posted above 24 states have binding laws of some sort.

they are not reps. they are electors. they are elected to be the person to vote.
if the founders had intended them only to be the a proxy vote for the populace, they would have put that bit of info in the document.
but this is all mute, but romney's defeat has now become more certain.

 

[dbill27]

Starts around 5 minutes in.

You are aware this doesn't have anything to do with civil disobedience right?

 

[dbill27]

they are not reps. they are electors. they are elected to be the person to vote.
if the founders had intended them only to be the a proxy vote for the populace, they would have put that bit of info in the document.
but this is all mute, but romney's defeat has now become more certain.

They certainly have the right to do it.

 

[torchbearer]

Mich is one of them which is why I didn't even bother to vote for our county's elector at state last weekend. These electors should just have kept their moves to themselves instead of spreading their intentions around. Most of us here are pretty sure R-money is going down and, in turn, will be looking to point fingers. The last thing my delegate team needs going into our next state convention in Feb is furious conservatives that feel betrayed and are unwilling to work with us on changing party leadership. This move will neutralize what the RNC did to us in the minds of other grassroots conservatives. Just sayin

the war has already been started.
first blood has been drawn.
just sayin'.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

they are not reps. they are electors. they are elected to be the person to vote.
if the founders had intended them only to be the a proxy vote for the populace, they would have put that bit of info in the document.
but this is all mute, but romney's defeat has now become more certain.

Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_v._Blair

 

[CPUd]

I just looked it up: 24 states have laws to punish "faithless electors" and those laws have been held up by the Supreme Court since electors are acting as a functionary of the state, therefore the states have the right to govern electors. I couldn't find a list of the states that have these laws though.

While many of the states can punish faithless Electors, of the approx. 200 times it has happened, no one has ever actually been punished for it.

 

[TheGrinch]

You are aware this doesn't have anything to do with civil disobedience right?

Are you joking?

Perhaps you should do a little more research on what civil disobedience means, because it means exactly to stand up against unjust laws (and in this case cheating, disenfranchisement, breaking and changing rules). Civil disobdedience means to not just sit back and take it because it's the "law".

That doesn't mean it's always the best course of action, but when given what this is in response to, it certainly isn't unjustifiable for them to say "no, you cannot jsut steal this election", and draw attention to the matter.

 

[dbill27]

the war has already been started.
first blood has been drawn.
just sayin'.

I just don't understand how the grassroots went from lofty goals like winning the presidency and big accomplishment like rand becoming senator to all of a sudden not caring about giving the finger to the GOP or anyone else who disagrees with us right now and lowering to the GOP's level for meaningless victories like 3 electoral votes.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

While many of the states can punish faithless Electors, of the approx. 200 times it has happened, no one has ever actually been punished for it.

Probably because it has never amounted to anything.

 

[torchbearer]

Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_v._Blair

so its a states issue?
kinda hard to win that argument when the elector is voting on a federal official.

 

[dbill27]

Are you joking?

Perhaps you should do a little more research on what civil disobedience means, because it means exactly to stand up against unjust laws (and in this case cheating, disenfranchisement, breaking and changing rules). Civil disobdedience means to not just sit back and take it because it's the "law".

That doesn't mean it's always the best course of action, but when given what this is in response to, it certainly isn't unjustifiable for them to say "no, you cannot jsut steal this election", and draw attention to the matter.

well, what they're doing is legal so

 

[torchbearer]

I just don't understand how the grassroots went from lofty goals like winning the presidency and big accomplishment like rand becoming senator to all of a sudden not caring about giving the finger to the GOP or anyone else who disagrees with us right now and lowering to the GOP's level for meaningless victories like 3 electoral votes.

i know you don't understand. you weren't there.

 

[TheGrinch]

I just don't understand how the grassroots went from lofty goals like winning the presidency and big accomplishment like rand becoming senator to all of a sudden not caring about giving the finger to the GOP or anyone else who disagrees with us right now and lowering to the GOP's level for meaningless victories like 3 electoral votes.

It is abundantly clear that they started this, and deserve every bit of it to be exposed however we can.

If you just let yourself be shat on and take it, then they'll never stop.

 

[torchbearer]

we will get fair elections again when the party bosses are replaced.
party bosses are replaced because they can't win elections. a vote of no confidence.
the worst thing that can happen to us is for the party bosses to win after crushing our bones this primary.
if you can't understand the above statement, there is nothing i can do for you.

 

[TheGrinch]

well, what they're doing is legal so

Okay, even better then. There were also legal ways that Gandhi and MLK used to exercise civil disobedience, but it is not exclusive with legality. In fact, it stands in opposition to any question of legality, and only regarding what's right.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It is abundantly clear that they started this, and deserve every bit of it to be exposed however we can.

If you just let yourself be shat on and take it, then they'll never stop.

Understandable, but I think there are some who act without consideration of future consequences. Hypothetically, if this occurs and there is outrage from the average voter over it and we lose Rand, Davis, Massie, Amash, Bentivolio, etc because the GOP aggressively primaries every single one of our guys in 14 & 16, was it worth it?

 

[dbill27]

It is abundantly clear that they started this, and deserve every bit of it to be exposed however we can.

If you just let yourself be shat on and take it, then they'll never stop.

So fuck everything that's been accomplished. They started it and I know you are but what am I. Fuck it to everything, lets get those damn 3 votes, that will show them! Then we can go back to the libertarian party and live it up with our zero seats in congress!!! They started this because they run the show, if you want to get back at them, you take them over and run the show, you don't quit the team and forfeit.

 

[TheGrinch]

So fuck everything that's been accomplished. They started it and I know you are but what am I. Fuck it to everything, lets get those damn 3 votes, that will show them! Then we can go back to the libertarian party and live it up with our zero seats in congress!!! They started this because they run the show, if you want to get back at them, you take them over and run the show, you don't quit the team and forfeit.

We ain't quitting anything. We've only begun to fight.

You know you can help gain a majority when you can show how corrupt the current majority is.

 

[dbill27]

Okay, even better then. There were also legal ways that Gandhi and MLK used to exercise civil disobedience, but it is not exclusive with legality. In fact, it stands in opposition to any question of legality, and only regarding what's right.

Well, they aren't protesting any laws, they aren't breaking any laws so by definition, this isn't civil disobedience. So using the argument that Ron supports civil disobedience to imply he supports this is backwards.

 

[TheGrinch]

Well, they aren't protesting any laws, they aren't breaking any laws so by definition, this isn't civil disobedience. So using the argument that Ron supports civil disobedience to imply he supports this is backwards.

Ok, enough with this semantic bullshit. If he supports illegal civil disobedience to j=unjust laws, then I have no idea why that would imply that he doesn't support whatever it is you call this legal disobedience, which was your initial claim.