story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=7&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/disgruntled_elector

W. Virginia Elector Might Leave Bush
By JENNIFER BUNDY, Associated Press Writer

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - If President Bush (news - web sites) wins West Virginia, one of the state's five Republican electors says he might not vote for Bush to protest the president's economic and foreign policies.

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said based on his research, an elector has "qualified discretion" when it comes to casting a vote.

"There is an implied duty to vote for your party's candidate. But I don't think it's an explicit duty or responsibility," said Robb, a moderate Republican who has a reputation of being a maverick in the state party.

Still, Robb calls it "highly unlikely" that he would cast a vote for Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites). He said he might cast his vote for Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) or another Republican instead as a protest against Bush, meaning the president would lose out on one electoral vote.

Robb's decision could end up having enormous national significance because the presidential election is expected to go down to the wire. That is exactly what happened in 2000, when George W. Bush won the White House with 271 electoral votes. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes.

"There are people talking about a tied race," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist with the University of Virginia. "This one man could change the election result, could negate the vote of 115 million Americans."

Robb's dissatisfaction with Bush stems from the president's decision to invade Iraq (news - web sites) and economic policies he says have caused the loss of nearly 1,000 high-paying chemical and manufacturing jobs in his town of about 13,000 residents. Robb has been mayor of the Charleston suburb since 1975.

A veteran who won a Bronze Star in the Vietnam War, Robb said he also is upset with campaign ads that attacked Kerry's war record.

State GOP Chairman Kris Warner said he is not worried about how Robb will vote if West Virginia again goes for the president. Bush won the 2-to-1 Democrat state in 2000 by 6 percentage points, making him the first Republican presidential candidate who was not an incumbent to take the state in more than 70 years.

"I maintain Mayor Robb will carry out the will of the West Virginia people when it becomes clear and decisive President Bush has carried the state," Warner said. Recent polls show the race is too close too call.

Robb said he objects to criticism from some who say he is a "faithless" elector. He said he views himself as a "principled elector" because he is discussing his qualms about Bush before the election.

"There have been a few people who have been downright hateful. I think that is just the nature of this election, which has been hateful," Robb said. "I won't be intimidated by the mean-spirited attacks."

Only 10 electors in history have gone against the popular vote, including one from West Virginia.

Margarette Leach of Huntington 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.

String the motherfucker up!

Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again?

Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again?

WTF??????????

WV has that big, tall bridge over the New River.

Quoted: String the motherfucker up!

Yes!!

Hang that traitorous motherfucker high!

Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you?

Well done!
A clumsy personal attack, rather than defending a system that would let ONE West Virginia elector possibly change a whole election!
Attaboy!

Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you?

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1

+2

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? Well done! A clumsy personal attack, rather than defending a system that would let ONE West Virginia elector possibly change a whole election! Attaboy!

As opposed to the fucked up citys picking ALL of our leaders in a "Popular" vote? No one outside of any of the population centers would ever have a voice! The electoral college is genious! I kringe at the thought of NYC or LA making choices for WV. This guy will vote right, If not he'll kiss his dumbass goodbye in his next election.

Read todays editorial by David Broder on this subject.  Shoots holes in the alternatives!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2

+3

Quoted: Read todays editorial by David Broder on this subject.  Shoots holes in the alternatives!

link?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2

+3

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2 +3

+4

Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again?

The Founding Fathers put their duty and their honor before their own personal wishes.  They assumed, maybe incorrectly, that anyone given such an enormous duty would have the integrity to carry it out.

Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again?

I can do it in 3 words:

President Al Gore.

Sorry, no link (online need Washington Post sub).  I saw it in my morning paper.

it still works.

And Bush is going to win whether this guy votes for him or not.  Notice he MIGHT.  The reason he isn't sure is because hes got to consider that if he votes against the popular vote he may very well not get chosen to be a member of the electoral college next time.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2 +3 +4

+5

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2 +3 +4

+5

www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/laws.html

in his state there is no legal requirement or ethical requirement to vote for the winner.  There is no constitutional requirement either.  

Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA - 8 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 13 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 22 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 12 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes


MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 33 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 23 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 32 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2 +3 +4

+5


Either we have an Electoral College, or NY, Chicago, and LA decide the election.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? The Founding Fathers put their duty and their honor before their own personal wishes.  They assumed, maybe incorrectly, that anyone given such an enormous duty would have the integrity to carry it out.

That was in 1775.

This is 2004.

Integrity is not part of the newspeak vocabulary.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? The Founding Fathers put their duty and their honor before their own personal wishes.  They assumed, maybe incorrectly, that anyone given such an enormous duty would have the integrity to carry it out. That was in 1775. This is 2004. Integrity is not part of the newspeak vocabulary.

he is not required by either state law, the constitution, or a personal oath to vote for the winner

He is playing a dangerous game , we'll see if he has the nerve to throw his nuts on the chopping block.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you?

OWNED!

Quoted: He is playing a dangerous game , we'll see if he has the nerve to throw his nuts on the chopping block.

...  in West Virginia there is not legal or ethical requirement to vote for the winner, nor is there a constitutional requirement to do so.

His nuts are gonna be just fine.

He may not legally be required to cast his vote how he "should"...but I think it's pretty safe to assume that if he were to cause the election to swing to Kerry by a single vote, he probably wouldn't live long enough to see the consequences of his decision.

I wonder how much the dem's are paying this guy?

Quoted: He may not legally be required to cast his vote how he "should"...but I think it's pretty safe to assume that if he were to cause the election to swing to Kerry by a single vote, he probably wouldn't live long enough to see the consequences of his decision.

He should vote for whoever he thinks would make the best president.  Thats what electors are supposed to do.  Read Federalist #68 for more info on the original purpose of electors

If West Virginia feels it is necessary, they can write a law like many other states have to insure electors vote for the winner of the popular vote.  

since it isnt realisticly possible for bush to win by one electoral vote, thereby making his actions totally ineffective, i doubt anyone is paying him anything.

in the history of electoral activism, never once has it been effective. it is usually just a statement. if it did become a serious threat to the electoral system we would see laws quickly passed to prevent such actions.

Electors are chosen from the "party faithful" and vote as they are supposed to 99.99% of the time...I wouldn't worry about one Electoral Vote, anyway...Bush will get at least 300 Electoral Votes, so don't sweat it...unless, of course, you support that communist traitor Kerry and his ambulance chaser running mate Edwards...

November 2nd...FLUSH THE JOHNS!!!

Quoted: Electors are chosen from the "party faithful" and vote as they are supposed to 99.99% of the time...I wouldn't worry about one Electoral Vote, anyway...Bush will get at least 300 Electoral Votes, so don't sweat it...unless, of course, you support that communist traitor Kerry and his ambulance chaser running mate Edwards... November 2nd...FLUSH THE JOHNS!!!

Still does'nt answer the question of WHY the party faithful chose this clown as an elector.  What a good idea - choosing John McCains to cast a nuanced vote based on their concoicne (sp) to make a statement.

Can some one please point to the part of either the US code OR West Virginia Law that says this guy cannot be replaced between now and election day?

While a elector doesn't have to vote for the winner, most places they are not chosen untill AFTER Nov 2.

I don't think you all are understanding this one.

This WV guy may cost BUSH the election, if it is very close.

That's why it doesn't MATTER who this idiot thinks is "the best candidate" because he has some issues with Bush.

It means THIS ONE GUY can cost Bush an election, if it is close, because there is no law to MAKE him represent all of our votes,

Get it now?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's hear the Electoral College apologists tell us why this is a good thing again? Because our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 Either we have an Electoral College, or NY, Chicago, and LA decide the election.

+6

Quoted: I don't think you all are understanding this one. This WV guy may cost BUSH the election, if it is very close. That's why it doesn't MATTER who this idiot thinks is "the best candidate" because he has some issues with Bush. It means THIS ONE GUY can cost Bush an election, if it is close, because there is no law to MAKE him represent all of our votes, Get it now?

Again, WHY cant this guy be replaced in the next two weeks.

But this election is NOT going to be even close. Just look around.

I can't point out when, but I believe that only once did an electoral college member vote against the wishes of his state.  There is a precedence.

Actually, 8 times since 1948 and more before this.  None affected the outcome.

Quoted: I can't point out when, but I believe that only once did an electoral college member vote against the wishes of his state.  There is a precedence.

This was a normal occurance in the 19th Century. When we normally had more than two canidates winning states, those with the least number of states, horsetraded them in exchange for favors from the two front runners.

it is his right....just one more defense against socialism

Quoted: Quoted: He may not legally be required to cast his vote how he "should"...but I think it's pretty safe to assume that if he were to cause the election to swing to Kerry by a single vote, he probably wouldn't live long enough to see the consequences of his decision. He should vote for whoever he thinks would make the best president.  Thats what electors are supposed to do.  Read Federalist #68 for more info on the original purpose of electors If West Virginia feels it is necessary, they can write a law like many other states have to insure electors vote for the winner of the popular vote.

A law would not insure anything.  It would probably make provision for some sort of penalty, but the vote would still be cast by the elector...