Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:00 PM
uppityperson (115,527 posts)
Four Washington state electors break ranks and dont vote for Clinton
Source: Seattle Times [div class"excerpt"]Only eight of 12 Democratic electors in Washington cast their votes for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the state in November. In an act of symbolic protest, three electors voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and one cast a vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American elder from South Dakota. Its the first time in four decades that the states electors have broken from the popular vote for president. Washingtons 12 electors met Monday afternoon in the state Capitol to complete the constitutional formality. (clip) After the vote, several electors said they hoped the attention to the event would carry forward into the future and possibly result in the system being replaced by a national popular vote...... Read more: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/four-washington-electors-break-ranks-and-dont-vote-for-clinton/ wtf Yeah, because no one would've noticed if you hadn't thrown away your vote. Not even to Bernie, but Colin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle? wtf
|
35 replies, 6179 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
uppityperson | Dec 2016 | OP |
KT2000 | Dec 2016 | #1 | |
George II | Dec 2016 | #2 | |
NewJeffCT | Dec 2016 | #13 | |
George II | Dec 2016 | #20 | |
Chasstev365 | Dec 2016 | #26 | |
AtheistCrusader | Dec 2016 | #3 | |
greatauntoftriplets | Dec 2016 | #4 | |
Nwgirl503 | Dec 2016 | #5 | |
LisaL | Dec 2016 | #6 | |
PoliticAverse | Dec 2016 | #8 | |
LisaL | Dec 2016 | #10 | |
PoliticAverse | Dec 2016 | #12 | |
rpannier | Dec 2016 | #32 | |
pnwmom | Dec 2016 | #15 | |
Kittycow | Dec 2016 | #22 | |
pnwmom | Dec 2016 | #23 | |
Kittycow | Dec 2016 | #24 | |
JCanete | Dec 2016 | #7 | |
Initech | Dec 2016 | #11 | |
George II | Dec 2016 | #21 | |
groundloop | Dec 2016 | #25 | |
LenaBaby61 | Dec 2016 | #28 | |
BeyondGeography | Dec 2016 | #9 | |
orleans | Dec 2016 | #14 | |
kudzu22 | Dec 2016 | #16 | |
BBG | Dec 2016 | #33 | |
LaydeeBug | Dec 2016 | #17 | |
Shrek | Dec 2016 | #18 | |
Lulu KC | Dec 2016 | #19 | |
LenaBaby61 | Dec 2016 | #29 | |
FXSTD | Dec 2016 | #27 | |
TomCADem | Dec 2016 | #30 | |
SunSeeker | Dec 2016 | #31 | |
Johnathan146 | Dec 2016 | #34 | |
Wabbajack_ | Dec 2016 | #35 |
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:01 PM
KT2000 (20,363 posts)
1. Attention -
the wrong kind. What jerks.
|
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:02 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
2. "Symbolic protest"? What were they protesting, reality?
Response to George II (Reply #2)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:16 PM
NewJeffCT (56,800 posts)
13. they're protesting
that Sanders didn't win the nomination, I would imagine.
|
Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #13)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:42 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
20. In other words, reality.
Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #13)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:32 PM
Chasstev365 (5,191 posts)
26. You don't know that!
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:03 PM
AtheistCrusader (33,982 posts)
3. Whut
wat
I don't even |
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:04 PM
greatauntoftriplets (174,786 posts)
4. Oy.
![]() |
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:05 PM
Nwgirl503 (406 posts)
5. Can't wait to read Chumps tweets on this
JHC.
|
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:06 PM
LisaL (44,836 posts)
6. It doesn't matter but would have been a horrible problem if she got 270 votes and lost the
presidency because of people like that.
|
Response to LisaL (Reply #6)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:10 PM
PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)
8. They wouldn't have done that if her getting 270 was a realistic possibility. n/t
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #8)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:11 PM
LisaL (44,836 posts)
10. Before the election several of them from Washington state were already saying
they won't vote for her.
|
Response to LisaL (Reply #10)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:13 PM
PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)
12. People say and do many things when it doesn't matter. n/t
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #12)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 08:10 PM
rpannier (24,023 posts)
32. Yeah talk is cheap when you figure it won't matter
Most people thought she'd bury Il Douche, so they felt safe in making those statements
When the reality strikes and their stupid decisions have consequences, people think twice |
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #8)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:24 PM
pnwmom (107,994 posts)
15. Not true. At least a couple were grandstanding know-it-alls
who made the announcement long ago.
Our state needs to be a lot more careful about who it chooses to be its electors. |
Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:47 PM
Kittycow (2,396 posts)
22. Yep I clearly remember that one guy pledging Clinton
and afterwards saying that even if he had the deciding vote he wouldn't vote for her. And the Democratic leadership was brushing it under the rug.
Was that you telling about the meeting? Caucus? (I don't quite understand those. ) |
Response to Kittycow (Reply #22)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:51 PM
pnwmom (107,994 posts)
23. I wasn't there for that -- I believe it happened after the caucuses.
So some people voted for him as a Bernie delegate not knowing that he would refuse to support the ultimate nominee. A*hole.
|
Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:04 PM
Kittycow (2,396 posts)
24. Thanks for your reply :)
My husband and I are trying to find a balance to keep informed yet keep our mental health. I want to find a way to fight back so I'm trying to educate the people around me, to start with.
|
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:10 PM
JCanete (5,272 posts)
7. This will not do what they think it's going to do. If you don't break ranks from the Republican
nominee, or at least the winning candidate, there's no reason for anybody on the right to give a shit. They're fine with it, really, and you can't get changes to election laws unless they're deemed unconstitutional in this nation if one side is always benefitting from the status quo.
|
Response to JCanete (Reply #7)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:11 PM
Initech (97,360 posts)
11. And the fuckhead deplorables are loving this on Twitter.
I swear to god if I see one more use of the phrase "liberal tears"...
![]() |
Response to Initech (Reply #11)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:44 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
21. Wait until mid-2017 when many of those deplorables lose some of the benefits they worked for...
....and earned. If they think we've seen "liberal tears", there will be a lot more "conservative tears"!
|
Response to George II (Reply #21)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:27 PM
groundloop (11,160 posts)
25. Unfortunately it won't be only the deplorables who lose benefits
All of us will be suffering thanks to our archaic 'Electoral College', a system that should have been abandoned a hundred years ago. It's just unfathomable that a candidate can win by nearly 3 MILLION VOTES and still lose.
|
Response to George II (Reply #21)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:47 PM
LenaBaby61 (6,499 posts)
28. Wait until mid-2017 when many of those deplorables lose some of the benefits they worked for...
The deplorables will be blaming Pres. Obama for tRump's mess, and they don't know it YET, but they'll be IN that MESS up to their deplorable eyeballs.
|
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:11 PM
BeyondGeography (38,650 posts)
9. Hooray for Goofballs
Yay.
|
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:21 PM
orleans (32,583 posts)
14. 4 electors. unhelpful. n/t
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:24 PM
kudzu22 (1,273 posts)
16. If you think about it
it was a better ploy than trying to swing Republican electors to Hillary. You'd never get Hillary to 270 that way. The only hope was to keep Trump under 270 and send it to the house, and if that happened, they'd need an alternate to vote for besides Trump. So these Washington electors gave them Powell as an option.
But, it looks like the gambit failed because Trump will get 270 anyway. |
Response to kudzu22 (Reply #16)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 08:54 PM
BBG (2,006 posts)
33. Bingo
You have it in three sentences. No way to swing republican electors to HRC. Only chance was to see their bloc drop below 270 and coax a vote for a more mainstream, responsible choice like Powell.
We did our part in Washington state and tried to show the way toward Bernie during the primary/caucus season. Even so my precinct still came in overwhelmingly 22-1 for HRC in the general. |
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:25 PM
LaydeeBug (10,291 posts)
17. I know there will be lots of talk about what a *dangerous* precedent this sets. OMINOUS talks
about not following the will of the state...oh THAT'S right, we *only* see that when it's the majority of Americans trying to keep the KGB out of the WH....THEN it's a fucking crisis.
![]() |
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:26 PM
Shrek (3,790 posts)
18. Senator Warren got an electoral vote for VP
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 06:27 PM
Lulu KC (2,380 posts)
19. This made me sadder than anything else
I'm going into my cave for a while. Time to recharge the battery. Signed, Depleted
|
Response to Lulu KC (Reply #19)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:51 PM
LenaBaby61 (6,499 posts)
29. This made me sadder than anything else.
I'm not sad per se, because for me this was expected.
I'm not even watching anything related to it. I'm watching my Roku and thankfully the great folks here are keeping me abreast of what's happening. I REFUSE to watch the so-called Liberal media which doesn't exist talk about anything dealing with tRump--who with the help of his bestie boy toy putin--stole the 2016 General Election. |
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:34 PM
FXSTD (25 posts)
27. This shows we have even more work to do than we thought.
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 07:51 PM
TomCADem (17,308 posts)
30. Three Bernie Electors Voted for Colin Powell?
Shows that we're never really into Bernie if they not only fail to vote for Hillary or Bernie, but for a Republican.
|
Response to TomCADem (Reply #30)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 08:07 PM
SunSeeker (49,719 posts)
31. Yup. Troll electors. nt
Response to TomCADem (Reply #30)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 08:57 PM
Johnathan146 (141 posts)
34. There was a method to their madness
If no canidate has 270, then the house picks among the 3 with the highest electoral college votes.
There is no way the house is voting for Clinton. By giving Powell 3 votes he becomes an option, and its possible the house elects him president. (And the idea is powell is a better compromise than trump ) Since trump got more than 270, it really doesnt matter who clinton electors voted for. |
Response to Johnathan146 (Reply #34)
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 08:09 AM
Wabbajack_ (1,300 posts)
35. There was never the slightest chance of that happening
Republicans have done nothing but genuflect in front of Trump since the election, we're fortunate to have had 2 not vote for Trump, they are as shocked as we are that he won and are GLEEFULLY lining up for jobs.
Hell, Kasich is probably not rightwing enough for most of those electors, or the House GOP, let alone Powell, who broke ranks to support Obama. Wanted a real chance at this crazy scheme? The half-assed effort we got wasn't good enough, how about this if all 232 Democratic electors had said they were voting for Ted Cruz, that might have tempted 38 Republican electors, maybe the entire Texas delegation. Would you have wanted that? I think I'd honestly rather have fucking Trump than that wingnut Cruz. I can respect the Bernie elector in Hawaii and the one who voted for the Native American activist, either of which might have been a better candidate than HRC, but voting for a Republican? Even a "moderate" like Colin Powell? When every rational person knew there was NO chance of this working. No. Sorry if I sound testy just, ugh. ![]() ![]() |