NationStates Jolt Archive

Robb's vote may not go to Bush
GOP mayor may use Electoral College
to lodge protest against president

Chris Stirewalt
Daily Mail Political Editor

Wednesday September 08, 2004

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said today he may vote against George W. Bush in the Electoral College, even if the president carries West Virginia's popular vote.

Robb, long known as a maverick Republican, said he is considering using his position as one of the state's five Republican electors to protest what he believes are misguided policies of the current administration.

"It's not likely that I would vote for Kerry," Robb said. "But I'm looking at what my options are when it comes time to cast my vote."

State election law dictates that the party of the candidate who wins the popular vote for president gets to send its five electors when the Electoral College convenes in mid-December.

At their state convention in June, the members of the West Virginia Republican Party chose the top five runners-up from their gubernatorial primary to serve as electors. Robb, who finished fourth in the May primary, will be among them.

Robb, who said he might reconsider if Bush changed his foreign and domestic policy priorities, said he is researching his options under state law.

There is no provision in the West Virginia code that controls what an elector does at the Electoral College or provides any punishment for faithless electors.

There have been eight electors in American history who have chosen to go against the popular vote in their home states, including Margarette Leach of Huntington, who 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 instead. In 2000, one of the electors from the District of Columbia withheld her vote altogether in protest of the district's lack of statehood.

Robb said he is considering either voting for a third candidate or withholding his vote altogether.

"I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous," Robb said. "But I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction."

Fellow elector Rob Capehart was somewhat taken aback by Robb's flirtation with defection.

"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."

Capehart raised the possibility that in a very close election, every electoral vote becomes crucial. In such a case, Robb would wield great power by virtue of his willingness to defect.

"Will Richie Robb decide who the next president is?" Capehart asked. "It's more important for us to maintain an allegiance for the people of West Virginia than an allegiance to our own personal viewpoint."

Robb's complaints about Bush center on what the mayor believes was a misguided policy on Iraq and the swelling budget deficit.

"I only started to really rethink my position seriously after the accusations about Kerry's service in Vietnam, though," Robb said. "I served in Vietnam, and I think Bush's surrogates, and I think really the Bush campaign, went beyond the line with those ads."

But state GOP Chairman Kris Warner was confident that Robb would come around.

"I'm confident that he'll do the right thing," Warner said. "He's a veteran. And although he's an independent mayor of South Charleston and does things his own way, he also knows what it's like to be part of a team."

________

Hehehe, Robb is my mayor. He is by far the best politician I've ever known. In a city that is overwhelmingly Democrat, Robb has been mayor for as far back as I can remember. A decent man who has worked hard to make our city a great place. And now, I'm very impressed that he would be willing to go against Bush because of his concerns about the president's policies.

Hopefully it doesn't come to this though. It would be much nicer to see the state carried by Kerry instead.

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I think that this defies democracy, on the other hand, Bush did steal his last election with an official GOP Bag O'Dirty Tricks (TM), so maybe tit-for-tat is fair in this case.

Well, like it or not, that's what we get with the electoral college system. We don't vote for the candidates but rather for the electors. They can do whatever they want with their vote.

I'm all for abolishing the electoral college as outdated and unnecessary. Personally, I don't see the argument about how smaller states would be left out of the mix if that were to happen. As it stands now, some smaller states have a grossly high proportion of electoral votes to population.

I just saw Lou Dobbs interview Joe Scarborough yesterday. I was impressed by his fiscally responsible message. My biggest problem with the Republicans in Congress (besides their conservative social issues) is their "we're the party of small government" while they outspend the Clinton domestic program like drunken sailors.

Under Bush, domestic spending (not Defense Department spending), increased more in one year than in four years of the Clinton administration.

Until the Republicans get their spending under control, the charge of "Tax and Spend Liberals" is a compliment coming from the "Bankrupt and Spend" Bush administration.

The smaller states should be left out: they're smaller states. As it is, the safe grounds (big cities for Democrats, the south for republicans) get little say in the election, as its a waste of time campaigning there, and medium sized swing states like Florida and Ohio and the like get a vastly disproportionate say in things.

Very interesting. This opens up several doors to discussion (please note that the selection of the adjective (the 2nd word in each paragraph below) is mine and mine alone, and is a selection that many will disagree with. Don't let that throw you - I just like adjectives, is all) -

1. The ethical issue of whether or not an Electoral College elector selected by a political party, then voted in by popular vote, is/should be bound to vote the party line.

2. The political issue of who "actually" won the presidential election in 2000. (popular vote - Gore, electoral college - Bush, reason - Supreme Court)

3. The moral issue of whether the Electoral College should be retained as it currently is, revised, or abolished in favor of the popular vote.

4. The moral issue of "black-mailing" someone for your Electoral College vote (or any other vote, for that matter).

\me:
1. No. My opinion is that ANY elected official has the responsibility to make what he/she honestly believes is the right decision/choice regardless of popular opinion.

2. Al Gore. Again, my opinion based on my personal belief that the Electoral College should be abolished.

3. Oops! Gave this one away. Abolish the Electoral College. It was created for two purposes, and neither applies any more. First, it was created because by putting the popular vote one step further from actually selecting the president, our not-so-trusting founding fathers felt this would allow "saner heads" to prevail. That's why electors are NOT bound by the popular vote. The general electorate was pretty uneducated in those days, and the Electoral College was a kind of insurance policy. Notice that it's set up so that those already in power pretty much control who the electors will be - just not which set will get sent to do the actual voting for President. Second, it was logistically easier to send a couple people from each State to Washington to vote, count those up, and declare the winner(s) - because in the early days of the US whoever was the winner of the Electoral College vote became President, runner-up became Vice President.

4. I'm against all forms of blackmail, including blackmail for a "just cause". I don't believe in "the ends justify the means".

Just my opinions...

Do It! Do it!

For the love of God...do it!.

Blackmail? Voting against a candidate who he disagrees with? I don't understand what you mean there.

Blackmail? Voting against a candidate who he disagrees with? I don't understand what you mean there.
Well - it sounded to me like Mr. Robb's vote could still go to GWBush, IF certain policies change before the vote has to be cast.

I may be reading more into that then is really there, but if that is the case - well, let's call it "grey"mailing...

I think he might sink his political career if he does that. Electorates are supposed to represent the will of the people of the state they are representing (hence why the US is a representative republic and not a democracy). Haha, I bet the republicans are looking like crazy for a legal way to replace him as one of their voters.

I think that defection is a good idea. Look the electorial college is actually a good idea. Its just been majorally abused. Nabraska is the only state where there is no carry all policy, whcih should extend to all states. Secondly, the ellectorial college is supposed to allow independent people to represent the needs of a certain region and vote for the most beneficial candidate. For example, Ohio's electors would look who has the best manufactoring policy. Thirdly, yes it would leave out those small areas. Why travel to a town of 10,000 when there are cities of millions?

Also, these days we can't actually read though all their policies. I mean do you want to spend your day looking through a 100 page document on Bush's enviormental policy or whatever. An elector would do that. And that is why when I get some credentials I'll run for electorial college!

Oh and about the problems of smaller states verses larger states, population will not solve it also. You have to use a mathamatical formula based on the possible effect of their vote.

For example 3 states of 6,000 7,000 2,000
by pop you have 6, 7, 2 but our little state of 2,000 which has about 12% of total pop makes every decision if the other 2 are opposed. Or better shown in 4

7,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 Who has the power 5,000 because you need them to have a majority against 7,000. And if one of the 3,000s abstain then 5,000 and the other 3,000 can still get a majority.


This gets much more complex for the 50 states but you can use it to figure out how everyone gets equal power.


And it happens right now, Kerry or Bush need only Ohio Pennslvania Florda and the election is decided. Even though there are plenty of close states and about 12 battleground states.

its been done before, get over it

ONOES, a politician who DOESN'T follow blind party loyalty? :rolleyes:

I think he might sink his political career if he does that. Electorates are supposed to represent the will of the people of the state they are representing (hence why the US is a representative republic and not a democracy). Haha, I bet the republicans are looking like crazy for a legal way to replace him as one of their voters.

He didn't sink his political career. Frankly, he wants higher office and just doesn't have the name recognition around the state to get a higher office. He's been mayor for around 2 decades but that doesn't help him into the Governor's Mansion. The Republicans are looking at ways to replace him but doing so quietly. Reason being that Robb is extremely well liked by Democrats and Republicans alike in Charleston and South Charleston. He's always been known as an independent thinker and doer and this has done wonders for our city. The Republicans only strongholds in our state are also the only areas in which Robb has name recognition. For them to dump Robb would cause severe backlash among voters here.

I've always said that Robb is the one politician I would trust with my life. He's always put party lines to the side and worked on what he thinks is best for our community. I hope he remembers the tax breaks Bush lavished upon Dow after they moved 2000 extremely high paying jobs out of our city to Belguim. For a city of 16,000 people, that is a nightmarish situation. Generations of workers for the last 100 years worked for Union Carbide. Then Dow takes over Carbide and receives tax breaks for eliminating those jobs. Sigh...

Just a reminder of how Bush loves industry:

Coal mining jobs down over 60% here since Bush took office

Steel industry jobs down over 65% here since Bush took office

Chemical industry jobs down over 80% here since Bush took office

And before anyone says otherwise, yes, a vast majority of these lost jobs are directly relating to Bush's policies.

Well - it sounded to me like Mr. Robb's vote could still go to GWBush, IF certain policies change before the vote has to be cast.

I may be reading more into that then is really there, but if that is the case - well, let's call it "grey"mailing...
Well, don't you think thats the case with everyone? That if Bush announced radical policy shifts, people who agreed with those policies would vote for him?

The only difference here is that this guy has 1/538th of the total vote of the country, as opposed to 1/200,000,000th

Well, don't you think thats the case with everyone? That if Bush announced radical policy shifts, people who agreed with those policies would vote for him?

The only difference here is that this guy has 1/538th of the total vote of the country, as opposed to 1/200,000,000th

Actually, (and I think you know better) that is very likely not the case. The nation is too polarized; very few people who are not voting for Bush would vote for him if he changed a few key policies. Besides, Bush's track record with staying the course on radical policy shifts is fairly low; ambitious projects are often proposed and then left to quietly die. He gets a short term approval boost from the proposal and then leaves things at status quo (Think NASA funding, Immagration reform)

What could happen with Robb would be a replay of what happened in 1988--as mentioned in the article--where an elector cast her vote for Lloyd Bentsen Dukakis's running mate) instead of Dukakis, I guess because she didn't like him or something. Now, that didn't end up affecting the election, since Atwater had done a thorough enough hammer job on Dukakis that one West Virginia electoral college vote didn't matter in the end, but can you imagine the furor if Kerry's at 269, Bush is at 268 (or vice versa) and Robb's vote can either decide the election or throw it into the House of Representatives? Yikes!

For it to make difference, W, Virginia would have to vote Republican, Or, more specifically, Bush will have to actually win W Virginia, to give Robb his electoral vote....wich he will cast for a third party.

Bush wont win West Virginia.

So, it really wont matter.

What WILL matter are Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Bush has no chance of taking Michigan.

Ohio?
Doubtful.
Many cities in Ohio are much like its neighbor to the north, Mchigan.
Many steel mills,and factories....that means Labor Unions....that means Democrats.

I dont think Bush will take Ohio.

Florida......thats harder to say...
Last time it came down to 545 votes wich ultimately decided the election...( and Bush's illegal activities of fixing the election)

This time, I believe that there may be many disenfranchised voters who remember quite well how they were treated, and will vote for Kerry.
I think that Bush has burned Floridas electoral bridge.
We'll see about that.

Penn..?

I wouldnt be surprised if he takes that one.

But Kerry will take Ohio, and Michigan, so I predict Kerry as your next President.

Get used to it.

Honestly, Squatch, I don't think it'll be that close in November, and there are a couple of reasons why.

First, Bush got pretty much every vote he was going to get back in 2000, and he was still 500,000 back of Gore. He's done nothing to expand his electoral base. He's spent most of the past 3 years pandering to people who wouldn't vote for his opponent on a bet, but has lost ground in key constituencies who were willing to give his "compassionate conservativism" a try--namely, gays and Latinos--and he's lost ground among fiscally conservative/socially libertarian Republicans as well. If he's picked up anyone along the way, it's the small number of people who actually believe that Bush can somehow singlehandedly save us from the "Ay-rab booglie-monsters" despite his lack of success on that front thus far, and there's no way that number will make up for what he's lost elsewhere.

Second, the Democrats are motivated this year like I've never seen before. There are people who have been waiting to cast this vote since Bush v Gore was decided back in 2000, people who wrote the last election off and have been inspired never to do it again, people who feel a sense of guilt and responsibility for having, through inaction, put Bush in office. There are thousands, perhaps millions of people who have never voted before who are going to do it this time because of the disastrous policies put in place during the last 3 years. The "get out the vote" efforts among Democrats are massive this year, and the unprecedented voter turnouts in the primaries--even after Kerry had all but sewn up the nomination--all point to a very motivated electorate on the Democratic side.

Turnout will be a major factor this year, and while the polls show it close, polls are weighted based on past turnout information. If one party or the other is able to get more of their people to the polls, that upsets poll projections. I really believe that this is what's going to turn what currently looks close into a blowout in November.