147 votes

The DIRTY word NO GOP convention wants you to know about, but YOU WANT TO KNOW: Becoming an ELECTOR

Originally Published February 20, 2012

I hope everyone here realizes that you don't vote for the President when it comes down to the general election. Democrat vs Republican vs Third Party

Your State Electors vote for the President and they are NOT bound to party. You vote in hopes your elector votes the way you and your state voted. So if the popular vote was won by Gore, you hope the electors follow. These are called electoral votes, and electors are decided at district and state party conventions.

So let's say Romney wins the Republican nomination and then in the General election in November the states vote and Romney wins, guess what you can do a few things as an elector, vote for Romney, Vote for Obama even though he lost, or vote for Paul or yourself if you want.

Yes, control the electors and you control who is President. The party cannot screw around with electors, it's federal law.

The party establishment folks will fight like hell to get their people voted in as the electors, they try to make it a fast vote.

Every Paul delegate to a congressional district convention and state convention must be an elector.

The number of electors per state is directly connected to the population of that state.

Usually they try to get party bigwigs voted in as electors, but in general I don't think they can be a government employee elected or otherwise- so no Senators, Governors etc.

All electors will meet at the Electoral College where they decide who will be President.

UPDATE: Looks like there are some states were you can be bound to the popular vote winner, but many do not, also some of the penalties are small, like $100- that's cheap money to vote Paul.

info below

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/l...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And I supposed I may as well add

that demos (Greek root for democracy) means "people", as in we the people.

That Clicked

Thanks for your helping me to put the puzzle pieces together. There is a reason that we are taking over the establishment. It is because we can. We are learning how to take the power back.

We are the ones that need to represent the best interests of the people, even though they don't realize what their best interests are.

Life, Liberty... and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"The best interests of the people"

is something the people can damn-well decide for themselves. The one and only "public good" is liberty. People who look to government for the solution to their personal problems ARE the problem.

All the wonderful "services" that governments offer are fascist controls implemented by extortion, theft and murder, for the purpose of our enslavement to government and central bankers, and the unjust enrichment of themselves and their cohorts.

The founders of our country believed that a "government" was necessary to defend our liberty from those who would threaten it. And they believed that this "government" could be restrained from itself becoming the greatest threat to our liberty.

They were wrong on both counts.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

And don't you have to pay money

the higher up you go, first maybe $25, then $50 at county and upwards around $100 or so at state level? Does anyone have any info on this?

No that is illegal

A fee cannot be put on Electors

Says who? The Constitution stipulates that the Electors of

each State shall be chosen in a manner directed by the Legislature thereof.

That's it.

If the manner the Legislature directs includes being chosen according to the results of a majority vote as a "slate" and also includes a requirement to state beforehand to whom you pledge to cast your Electoral vote, and also includes a penalty for voting in a different manner once you are chosen, then that is 100% Constitutional, and that is the Supreme Law of the Land. No Act of Congress can change that.

The State Legislatures can set ANY requirement or stipulation on being an Elector they see fit. They have 100% control over that process.

True, but one could argue it violates the 26th amendment...

...if electoral slates were only available to parties. After all, it's one thing to have electors appointed, but once you have them "elected", if you charge money to participate in that election, you've applied a poll-tax.
   
The way around this is that parties put forward a slate with a petition. Anyone can run to be an elector for free by being part of an independent candidacy, but that takes a lot of signatures.

In any event, in Texas, each Congressional District selects one elector in the party convention process, and you do have to pay a fee (I think around $30 or so) to attend the state convention. The Senate District (or County, if your county is wholly in one Senate District) conventions are free to attend. The state convention fee is a "seat fee", to defray the costs of renting the large facility. The Texas state convention has one of the largest floor delegations of any party assembly, and retains pretty much plenary power over party business.

I think there is a bit of confusion in this thread between

the delegate process and the Electors.

Yes, in some states, the conventions pick the Electors. That is not true everywhere.

A poll tax concerns voting in public elections.

The choosing of a slate of Electors for a party is NOT a public election. Thus the party can create any process it wants to nominate such a slate. They are a private organization.

Now, the choosing of who will be the Electors to cast votes for President and Vice-President for any particular state is entirely up to the Legislature thereof, and if done by election IS public and IS subject to the Poll Tax prohibition.

What I was speaking of concerning "fees" is that they can put a monetary penalty on being a Faithless elector if they so choose. So far, no one has been prosecuted and fined for casting a different vote. That is AFTER you are chosen as an Elector, and has nothing to do with requiring you to "pay to vote." In fact, an Elector is PAID to cast that vote since such a position is a public office.

So we have here three distinct processes that have three different sets of rules.

#1 - selection of delegates to various levels of party conventions
#2 - the nomination of people to be placed on the ballot to serve as Electors for their state.
#3 - the selection of which people will actually serve as Electors.

Only the last one is a public election.

The second one can be done by the various parties or by other independent groups. The exact process varies by State.

The first is what Dr. Paul is working on so he has the most delegates at the RNC in Tampa. And again, that process varies by State.

Reading this thread and the comments, it seems that some people (not necessarily you) are conflating these three things.

THIS....

....is the clearest post I have seen in this entire thread. Thank you!

Might be beneficial if you could start a new thread with this information because I almost didn't make it this far into the comments to read this (due to my eyes swirling with all the conflicting information in previous posts).

The delegate process in each state is different and in

most cases, probably doesn't have anything at all to do with who is an elector.

Though perhaps some state conventions choose electors. I'd bet that process is well guarded by the various State Central Committees or executive officers.

However, being an Elector is an elected position and thus you GET PAID to be an Elector by your State. (around $50-$100 depending on the State)

NO it's not a guarded process

It's Federal Law, electors are the only other elected "Federal Positions" besides Senators and US representatives. The law is public knowlege on how to elect electors for each state, and is not screwed with by the parties.

I think you are confusing choosing the Electors and who will be

on the ballot to vie for the position.

The parties defacto control who is on the ballot as an Elector for their party. Some if not all States, have laws to prevent more than one slate of Electors on the ballot in the same election from the same party.

Most States (save Nebraska and Maine) are winner-take-all systems, where either an entire "slate" of Electors pledged to support a candidate is chosen, or none of them are. (those two States, have two Electors at-large and then independently award one slot to each winner of each Congressional district)

Yes, they are "federal positions" but the Constitution leaves no room for Federal law concerning their selection.

The Legislature of each State is 100% in control of how their State's Electors are chosen. Any law passed by Congress on the matter would be without question, unconstitutional.

On the ballot at a regular election?

Which one? I've never seen a ballot where I could vote on who would be an elector in Texas.

I've seen the Texas computer ballots. They do not show that you

are voting for electors, sadly.

But you are.

You are NOT voting for President/Vice-President.

The Electors do that.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying you get to pick different people to be Electors, I'm saying you are choosing a slate of Electors pledged to a particular ticket.

Here's the Texas election law that applies:

Sec. 192.005. VOTE REQUIRED FOR ELECTION. The set of elector candidates that is elected is the one that corresponds to the candidates for president and vice-president receiving the most votes.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm

It's a poorly worded law for sure as it does not accurately describe the process. It makes no sense because the ONLY votes for President and Vice-President are cast by Electors. Thus it is silly to say it the way the law has, because it appears that the Electors are electing themselves! (or that the People vote for President and Vice-President, and this also chooses Electors, who then go and cast votes for President and Vice-President. Kind of silly when you try to look at it as written)

But the effect is the same as I've described for other states. By voting for example "for Ron Paul" you are not voting for Ron Paul, you are voting for a slate of Electors pledged to Ron Paul.

If those Electors win Texas, as a group, they go to Austin in December and cast the Presidential and Vice-Presidential votes for Texas, by voting for Ron Paul and his running mate.

As I noted, while Louisiana doesn't usually get things right in many cases, this is one where they are better than most. The law and the ballot are very clear, that in November, we are voting for Electors. It even requires that there be one Elector candidate from each Congressional District and two At-large, though they are elected as a slate, and not by District. (though I wish we would change to that) In a state like California, all 55 candidates for Elector could come from the same town. There's no correlation to them representing the people of California when they cast their votes, other than a link to the "popular vote." (Since technically, electors can vote for anyone, it makes more sense to tie them as "representatives" of the people, not just representatives of the people's preference.) But I digress...

Thanks, that actually did make sense.

And, now that you have given me a quick review, I do remember learning this in the past. I'd pay their fine if they jumped ship and voted for Paul.

Moved

Moved

Remember guys

Being an elector is a coveted position. There were only 7 electors in the Holy Roman Empire. Cardinals of the Catholic Church also used the same system.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

I thought the word was "FROTHY"

But then I read the entire title...

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Bump

bump

This is WHY its important to move UP in the GOP chain of command.

In AZ, in 2008, the McCain supporters had their purple sheet of pre-choosen delegates that they wanted to go to the National convention.

They divided up all the delegates into separate rooms, stood up there and had delegates vote for the purple sheet of delegates, then leave the room. The chance that the white sheet of ron paul delegates to get voted on, never happened, not in my room at least.

Then all the delegates departed their separate rooms and the floor collected all the votes for the Purple sheet of McCain delegates and it was "accepted".

No discussion, no debating, no chance for someone to stop the process.

THE PROCESS literally makes a delegate feel like cattle, herded this way and that, and the group think takes over and everyone is "pro mcCain" ... "We gotta win".

The REAL power is in the ORGANIZING of the State GOP conventions. The REAL power is in structuring the process, a process of what is happening next that those "out there in the audience", never know but do follow.

This is how Nevada was stolen and Texas and so on.

Today in AZ its McCain's top GOP people are all behind Romney inside the high ups in the GOP. That is where the rule making and procedure making and schedule of events and schedule on what to vote on is made. By controlling THAT, they control the whole thing. 10 people tops is all that is needed and this is WHY they are so confident. This is WHY they are not nervous that there are so many RP delegates, because getting UP higher into the GOP state structure from a lowly delegate position is a process that only loose lips divulge.

Stealth undercover GOP climbers is what is needed.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Yup, I was there too. Exactly

Yup, I was there too. Exactly how it happened in my room too.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I agree

What I noticed in my county is that the state party people are the rock stars everyone listens to at the county level. I heard a long winded speech about how we had to rally around McCain before the primary.

It struck me as strange how few people actually run things. 'Its a big club and you aint in it.' G. Carlin

The only way we can make a difference is at the local levels. There are so few people that make up the internal workings of the party that if everybody just started showing up to their local GOP meetings, we could flip the entire party by the end of this election.

True story.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

question to all

I understand our plight and I understand our goal...

However, am I missing something when we are pushing the goal of collecting delagates and making the assumption that at the convention after the first round of voting when some bound delegates are released and all swarm to RP that this is inherently decietful?

That the idea of getting in as mentioned above in the electoral college and voting for Ron Paul or Obama if ron paul is not the nominee would be inherently wrong?

I feel that we are treading on an edge here with regard to what WE believe is the right course for America and it's people but that it is the same mindset that Bastiat rails against in "The Law" of the socialist and communists. The idea of we know what is best for the country and will use the govt. to "legally" enact our divine wisdom to the masses. Does anyone else feel this way?

I really want to win but have we given up so much on doing it the traditional way, via the will of the people? Instead we hope and pray for Washington state and another one or two to be a victory. But, something just doesn't seem right about trying to take the delegates and then electoral college through this seemingly secretive manner. Whether or not we feel that the mass of America or the MSM is taking us the wrong way or that america is too "dumb" to get off of it's butt and do something, it is still the will of the people.

Please don't misunderstand me, all of this info is important and fascinating but I am having more and more trouble with the idea of forcing OUR will (albeit a well intentioned and good cause) on the rest of the GOP or, potentially, the country. If we can't convince through persuasion and logic our case; is it hypocritical to use the messed up system in place to force our way in? All the while blasting the GOP for taking us down a hole towards tyranny? Is what we are tyring to do no less underhanded in principle alone (e.g. the people that voted, voted for santorum or romney yet the delegate votes for RP).

I guess I just don't see how, at my current perspective of things, we can justify winning the nomination without winning a single state because we voted in all of the delegates. If we had won Maine and we end up winning Washington then I think everyone would feel better...but right now it feels slimy and deceitful.

Am I missing something that will make this all seem ok. honestly, maybe I am, but tell me. This is what Maddow has been hinting at I believe that our goal is to take the nomination underhandedly and without the will of the voters of those states.

And just for the record "legal" in my mind doesn't "justify" an action, necessarilly.

Must know this

You must know first of all just how far down the tubes this country has gone (and I am talking serious rabbit hole tubes) before you realize why this revolution is happening in the first place.

The system, as it was designed, has been completely taken over and manipulated over the years. What Ron Paul's people are doing are USING THE SYSTEM AS IT WAS INTENDED.

The reason why people THINK it is "secret and underhanded" is because the establishment is not ALLOWING for the process to occur as it was intended to. So RP people are then seen as "taking over" or "abusing" the system.

This is not about Ron Paul. This is about taking back the country from the few who control (unconstitutionally) the whole thing.

"Only in a system of Tyranny is the Truth seen as Treason" (not sure if that's the exact quote but I'm short on time and gotta run!)

Here is why

First off to clarify something, the National Convention does not allow bound delegates, each individual state is bounding you or not. So let's say Romney won your state, but you voted for Paul, your state delegation cannot stop you even on the first vote. When you get back to your homestate they can then kick you out if the party, but who cares about the party.

Do you really think Putin received 50% of the vote in Russia the other day? NO

The GOP manipulates who they want in, we are just manipulating right back at them, it's totally within the rules.

So I signed up to be a CA delegate on Ron Pauls website.

Should I also sign up on Romney's website? His Electoral request form actually requires you to pledge to vote for him. I of course could sign the pledge but would never vote for him.

Do you really believe

the will of the people is being served by these elections? If you do you are sadly mistaken

There was NEVER the intention that choosing the President should

reflect the "will of the People."

It was ALWAYS supposed to be done by the State governments via the Electors.

The Electoral system

My understanding is that the reason why we have this "college" is to be a safety measure against the abuses of the tyranny of the majority. After all remember that democracy is basically mob rule and once the public figures out that it can vote itself into the public treasury that republic is doomed as the voters vote their rights away in the name of entitlements and security.

Therefore the founders intended for the electors to not be bound when they make their vote in case the people unwittingly try to elect a tyrant.

As far as respecting the law goes remember one thing. the only valid laws are ones that abide to Common or Natural Law -- ones that respect life, liberty and property. All other laws are "illegal" and immoral.

Some examples of course are the Patriot Act, the NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, OBAMACARE, JIM CROW LAWS, SEGREGATION LAWS, The 16th Amendment and much much more since day one of our beloved Federal govt.

Ghandi and Martin Luther King understood the importance of civil disobedience when laws are unjust.

I believe this is no different. In fact I believe that this is what the founding fathers intended when establishing the electoral college.

________________________________________

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

Close, but not quite. It was NEVER intended that the

People elect the President.

It was always understood that the President would be selected by the State governments via their Electors.

The practice of choosing the Electors by popular vote was not started until later. "Slates" of Electors didn't begin till after that as well.

Even to this day, no State is required to hold an election for Elector in November, and the Legislature can pick the Electors using any method they so desire.

If say the Texas Legislature decided they wanted to appoint Ron Paul Electors even though he isn't "on the ballot" they could do so. They don't even have to have a ballot at all. They can just make the appointments. Even if current Texas law sets out an electoral process, and they actually hold the vote and count it, they can change it at the last minute. This HAS happened in the past. It causes chaos, and an uproar, but they have the power to do it.

Exactly!

The reason this is an option for us is because the system was designed this way, explicitly for our situation.

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman