Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republican Elector Won’t Vote for Trump
Texas elector and firefighter Christopher Suprun.
Following Donald Trump’s electoral upset over Hillary Clinton, and his lack of securing the popular vote, there’s been a lot of talk about “faithless electors.” These are members of the Electoral College who refuse to vote for their state’s chosen candidate, and in 2016 the left has worked hard to shake the faith among pro-Trump electors.
In American history there have only been 157 faithless electors, only half of whom changed their minds on personal initiative (the others resulted from a candidate dying before taking office or abstentions.) None of these renegades have changed the course of a presidential election. Could this year be the first?
Republican Texas elector Christopher Suprun took to the opinion pages of the New York Times to announce he will not cast his vote for Donald Trump:
I have poured countless hours into serving the party of Lincoln and electing its candidates. I will pour many more into being more faithful to my party than some in its leadership. But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.
Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief. During the campaign more than 50 Republican former national security officials and foreign policy experts co-signed a letter opposing him. In their words, “he would be a dangerous president.” During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.
Hamilton also reminded us that a president cannot be a demagogue. Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign. He speaks of retribution against his critics. He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. “Rogue One,” the latest “Star Wars” installment, arrives later this month. I am not taking my children to see it to celebrate evil, but to show them that light can overcome it.
…The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.
Many states place restrictions on electors from going rogue. But independent-minded Texas has no laws binding them to the will of their voters. Two questions: 1) Do you agree with Suprun’s decision, and 2) should he should face consequences?
Published in General
I followed right up to the Kasich part.
No. He knew the job as it was in 2016, and this is wrong, ethically. Not to mention, broadcasting it is self-absorbed That part is very 2016.
How so? Can one ethically be compelled to perform an action he considers unethical?
Note:
Calls for violence against public figures violate the CoC.1)No
2)[Redacted]
The current president lacked foreign policy experience at the time of his election.
The current president literally told his supporters to “get in their faces” and to “bring a gun to a knifefight”.
Just a couple of examples that clearly haven’t prevented the current president from performing the job, whether you agree with his policies or not. The hubris of electors was not something I was considering when I cast a vote but I can certainly see where I won’t be inviting ol’ Christopher Suprun over for yoks around the campfire. He seems swell.
12th Amendment states:
This is all the direction given. I think death is a tad extreme for simply doing what the Constitution directs the man to do.
This, right here, is a textbook example of why men like Suprun should stand against Trump and his authoritarian supporters. This statement belies a palpable ignorance of the laws of our country and a thuggish hostility to differences of opinion.
Also, would you reach the same conclusion if an elector refused to cast his vote for Obama in ’08 or ’12?
He signed on to vote for the person that the state went for. This is a breach. He should resign if he feels he cannot vote for Trump.
This is nothing more than moral preening. He wanted to make a public statement he has,. I have every right to seem his as scum.
Shouldn’t the man exercise is conscience? Does one exercising their conscience make them “scum”?
This is nothing more than assigning motives.
Did he? Is this? Got a reference to Texas law or Texas GOP rules concerning electors? Would those things override the Constitutional direction to merely cast a vote, not to vote according to some other agreement?
How did Christopher Suprun come to be an elector? Was it because voters within his state or district nominated and voted for him, or was it because he held himself out as a elector on behalf of Donald Trump?
If the people he is representing actually voted for Suprun, (and had any choice in who their party’s electors are) then he should vote his conscience. It seems more likely that he held himself out as an elector supporting Donald Trump as the candidate, and achieved his position because the people of Texas voted for Trump. If that is the case, then there is no basis for his position as an elector. The party should dismiss him and replace him with an alternate.
Are the individual electors’ votes public or private?
What are the rules on this sort of thing? Is there some sort of oath or agreement that electors have to enter into before they can accept the job?
Yes, it can.
But clearly, how I think about the subject is meaningless to you and TKP. You have your view and I have mine. I think this man is engaged in nothing more than moral preening. A man of conscience does not make a big deal about how great he is for what he is doing, but just does it.
I have stated how I see if actions. You, of course, see it as justification for your point of view. Since we are all human, let’s leave it at that.
This comes down to the question of whether the Electoral College should be a rubber stamp or not. If the answer is yes, then we should replace the body.
If it’s not, then when faced with a man who is clearly unfit for office, not only from an experience point of view, but totally lacking the necessary temperament to be President, maybe they should do their jobs and choose someone better suited to the office.
Excercising his conscience is one thing.
Praising himself for it in the Times is quite another.
There are laws in some states binding the electors. However, those laws are not enforced, have never been tested, and may not stand up to a court challenge.
So when people do the right thing, it’s “moral preening” or whatever to encourage others to follow suit?
Concur.
The man is not clearly unfit for office, anymore than the current one, or the “Lady” who lost. That is a subjective stance, that is unsupported by any actual facts, that demonstrate Trump is unfit on any grounds, compared to other people who have held the office.
You just don’t like him, therefore you think this is OK.
Please! The right thing is what you do when no one else is looking.
Trying to get enough Republican Electors to throw the election to someone else is hardly the “Right thing’ and you damn well know it. The damage it would do to our Republic would be immense.
Yes. His role is to cast a vote. Campaigning against the candidate his state’s voters have selected isn’t part of his assignment.
Here’s the Texas law regarding electors. Legally:
From what I can find Texas does not bind electors.
But neither is it forbidden.
Right. He’s spent the last 18 months demonstrating it. Idk how anyone could’ve watched the debates this fall and thought that man should be president.
Frankly, I don’t think a sleazy con man should be President. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to hold that same minimal standard.
So he’s forbidden to speak?
Actually, I don’t know that.
It seems that the “right thing” is to not elect a man who is clearly unfit for the office.
You think that maybe, after being elected, he would’ve been struck by the awesomeness of the situation, and for the first time in his contemptible life had a half an ounce of humility and maybe rethought some things.
Nope.
Same old Trump. Same old sleazy con man. It’s only a matter of time before he’s attacking gold star mothers in public and pussy grabbing in private.
How is it the “right thing” to elect this man?
Let’s think this through. If electors are not reprimanded for using their position to campaign freely, what will that do for the integrity of the Electoral College system? What would voters think about having their votes being thrown out by an unfaithful elector? Why would those voters continue to support the Electoral College? Why wouldn’t the sum of this add up to building support for abandoning the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote?
I don’t know if it is technically forbidden or not, but he definitely shouldn’t submit an op-ed to the New York Times.