Another TX Elector Calls Trump "Not Qualified"

[MI2AZ]

A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas announced Monday in a New York Times op-ed piece that he will not be casting his vote on Dec. 19 for President-elect Donald Trump.

Paramedic Christopher Suprun says Trump "shows daily he is not qualified for the office."

Suprun does not believe president-elects should be rejected because electors disagree with their policies or because they didn't win the popular vote. His argument for voting against Trump is rooted in the founding fathers' reasons for creating the Electoral College in the first place.

"Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes," Suprun writes. "Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him."

"The election of the next president is not yet a done deal," Suprun writes. "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."

The former firefighter, who says he was part of the response to the 9/11 attacks, says Trump "does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage."

Suprun will not be backing the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, however. He suggests electors get behind a Republican alternative such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

A group of Democratic electors who have dubbed themselves the "Hamilton Electors" are working to convince their Republican counterparts to defect from Trump and join their effort to block the president-elect. They have encouraged defectors to vote for Kasich instead of Trump.

.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

Of course, Christopher Suprun, an Electoral College member from Texas, has the right to vote however he so chooses -- and for whatever reason(s) he so chooses -- even though the majority of voters in his state voted for Donald John Trump.

In my opinion, which obviously doesn't (and shouldn't) override his, the reasons Suprun gives for his decision aren't more "valid" than the reasons of the Texas voters who supported Trump in significant numbers.

Regardless how certain individuals view the Electoral College, and regardless of those who call for its abolishment, the Electoral College is often a misunderstood but a truly genius concept.

If the U.S. president was elected strictly by popular vote, vast numbers of Americans would have little reason to vote because heavily-populated cities and states would decide every election. The density of those populated precincts would prevent rural and suburban communities and residents from having little or no say in presidential elections.

Instead, the Electoral College reflects a complex plan that gives voice to everyone. It is remarkable to realize that this nation's Founding Fathers anticipated and dealt with the possibility that special-interest blocs or population centers could hijack the elections. And if the Electoral College was abolished, presidential candidates would spend almost all of their campaign time and expenditures in such states as California, New York and New Jersey.

A look at the 2016 electoral map shows that whereas Hillary Rodham Clinton prevailed in the popular vote, it was because of her huge margins in states such as New York and California. Clinton dominated the Northeast, the West Coast and Illinois, but virtually everywhere else was in the Trump column. Had it been a popular vote, those smaller swaths of the country would have prevailed simply because of population density.

Critics of the Electoral College should take the time to refresh themselves about our system of governance.

 

[Greg T.]

Of course, Christopher Suprun, an Electoral College member from Texas, has the right to vote however he so chooses -- and for whatever reason(s) he so chooses -- even though the majority of voters in his state voted for Donald John Trump.

In my opinion, which obviously doesn't (and shouldn't) override his, the reasons Suprun gives for his decision aren't more "valid" than the reasons of the Texas voters who supported Trump in significant numbers.

Regardless how certain individuals view the Electoral College, and regardless of those who call for its abolishment, the Electoral College is often a misunderstood but a truly genius concept.

If the U.S. president was elected strictly by popular vote, vast numbers of Americans would have little reason to vote because heavily-populated cities and states would decide every election. The density of those populated precincts would prevent rural and suburban communities and residents from having little or no say in presidential elections.

Instead, the Electoral College reflects a complex plan that gives voice to everyone. It is remarkable to realize that this nation's Founding Fathers anticipated and dealt with the possibility that special-interest blocs or population centers could hijack the elections. And if the Electoral College was abolished, presidential candidates would spend almost all of their campaign time and expenditures in such states as California, New York and New Jersey.

A look at the 2016 electoral map shows that whereas Hillary Rodham Clinton prevailed in the popular vote, it was because of her huge margins in states such as New York and California. Clinton dominated the Northeast, the West Coast and Illinois, but virtually everywhere else was in the Trump column. Had it been a popular vote, those smaller swaths of the country would have prevailed simply because of population density.

Critics of the Electoral College should take the time to refresh themselves about our system of governance.

Critics of the electoral college don't want to know the whys and hows. All they care is that it didn't work for them this time so it has to be crooked. Had the results been reversed you have heard nothing from them.