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 am not greatly exercised by this one way or the other. However, a note:
Were we still selecting as electors the best and the brightest of each state and allowing them to consider all 320 million Americans in order to select the one they truly believed was the most fit to be president, yes -this voting your conscience would be an admirable thing. That hasn’t been the job in 216 years. Modern electors are delegates. They are elected to vote for their party’s nominee. If they can’t bring themselves to do that, the time to make the decision was when they were asked to be the elector, not when they are about to cast their votes.
Labeling something as “moral preening” is not much an argument.
What I find fascinating is that Trump supporters appear to be nervous about this possibility. They are offended and promising retribution of the highest order because deep down they are insecure about Trump’s ability to actually get elected.
Says who? What authority supports this view?
The affadavit that KP linked earlier in the thread that the elector swore out to the Party when he agreed to do the job. Is this a complicated question?
Well, what if he honestly believed it when we swore out the affidavit, but later changed his mind? Then what?
I am not making an argument, I am calling it like I see it. He could vote as he willed without being super public about it. Preening. Typical of what we have seen.
If Never Trump would like to move on, then this needs to stop, and needs to stop being celebrated.
Trump won. That is what happened.
He is being unethical. He said he would do something and then decided not too. Many would call that lying.
What irritates me about Suprun is his arrogant belief that his personal opinion deserves more votes than the one he cast on November 8.
Yeah, but not yet buddy.
Right. That. His constituents put a ballot in his hand and asked him to put it in the envelope. You’re proposing something akin to the mailman who refuses to deliver porn. The principle is admirable, but hardly the mail-carrier’s place.
And what shocking surprises have we learned about Donald Trump since the end of June?
So, it is inherently unethical not to keep a promise?
He won the election. To overturn it in this manner would be a disaster and do untold damage to the future of our Republic. It would be a message to half the nation that their votes did not matter, and that nothing they do will change the direction of the nation. It would be an invitation to insurrection.
Buddy.
Yes. Dear Lord, what did you grow up with? Breaking your word is wrong.
Well, he nominated Mattis to SecDef. That shocked the heck out of me…
He didn’t win anything yet, Bryan. Hillary Clinton received more votes in total. That is meaningless. Trump “won” the majority of votes for electors to the EC. That is also meaningless. What matters is the EC vote.
Can we all at least agree that if the faithless elector is going to be faithless that he should vote for Mitch Daniels?
Is that… “moral preening” I sense Bryan?
OK, so is it wrong to break any promise in any situation? Let’s say you are engaged in an active business of murder-for-hire. You make a contract to kill a completely innocent person. Wrong to break your word then?
Please address my post, Paul, and not go over your legalistic argument again. You can quote me what is legal until the cows come home: I am talking about what is ethical and what is reality. To deny Trump the White House via this method would be a disaster for this nation. If you disagree, by all means, state your case. I will take silence on this as you not only agree with me, but you support that damage simply to stop Trump.
First off, I am not preening, because I am not going out of my way to make a big deal out of it. I am answering a question here. It is amazing to me, how over Trump, any accusation of preening is turned around. I did not launch this attack, I am watching it from the sidelines. Never Trump is the side who made the big, public stand.
Second, going back on your promise is always wrong. Engaging in murder for hire is also always wrong. Sounds like not killing the innocent person is a lessor of two evils. Ethical dilemmas are like that.
It appears the proper time to address his issues was immediately after the convention (or at any point up to election day as relevant data continuously leaked into public view)…with a quiet resignation from his elected position and an apology to the caucus members who put their faith in his word.
Then he does not get to be Hamlet in public.
Thank you for posting the obvious.
In that case, it was in fact immoral to give your word in the first place, since you knew the action your swore to carry out was immoral. I would support stripping you of your office regardless of whether you carried out your oath.
So also in this case: he knew the candidate and Mr. Trump’s behaviors and swore to support him anyway. If he thought it immoral to do so, he was immoral in so swearing. If he’s changed his mind, he is forsworn. In either case he is no longer worthy of his office.
I’d like to ask you a serious question. It’s a question I asked Fred a little while ago, but he had no answer.
Clearly, you see an opportunity here to upend the will of the Texas voters. More to the point, you’d like to see Trump defeated. Given where we are today, how should the 45th president be selected, and who would you like it to be — realistically. What do you see as the best possible outcome? We will need a president. How should this play out if you get your wish and Donald Trump is denied the presidency.
I addressed your post, and for the sake of clarity, I disagree categorically. More than half the people in this country didn’t vote for Trump. Did they riot because they lost due to a “legalistic” institution like the Electoral College? No. Trump did not run for Most Popular Kid in the United States. He ran for a Constitutional office. The only way to get that office is according to the Constitutionally prescribed procedure. You are making up some new test for that office that is not found in the Constitution. You’re saying that the person who secures the most votes for electors should be the President, regardless of how those electors actually vote. That is no more supportable than saying the winner of the popular vote should be President. Both “systems” are alien to the Constitution.
If you want to live by the sword, you die by the sword. The only reason Trump is in contention for President is because of the “legalistic” EC. If you want him to be President, he has to get the electors’ votes. You don’t get to take the benefits of the EC without also taking its downsides.
Suprun is not “people”. Sure, we all expect “people”to do the right thing.
Suprun, is an individual; he made a promise which should have included, when he signed on, to not go falling for leftist rhetoric and disinformation.
So to be clear, is it unethical to take the lesser path of two evils? And why is the ethical dilemma that Mr. Suprun finds himself in any different?
So you think, that if almost half the nation votes for Trump, they expect he won, and if the EC were to void that, there would be no repercussions politically or socially? I want to be totally sure on this point, so let me restate it:
You believe that the EC not electing Trump would not cause damage to our Republic?