This guy is so fucking triggered by the faithless elector in Washington holy shit

This guy is so fucking triggered by the faithless elector in Washington holy shit

The article for those of you who want a laff:
>thestranger.com/slog/2016/11/06/24673820/fuck-this-fucking-guy-robert-satiacum-the-washington-state-democratic-elector-who-wont-vote-clinton

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/T8B7kjH2
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Here you go mr. journalist ;^)
pastebin.com/T8B7kjH2

Thanks lad, much obliged.

Wish I had thought of it

wtf i hate hillary now

Top kek. I can understand that he's angry about it, but does it need to project that much ?

>dems killing a native american

Yeah, that's exactly what they need to do.

That might be the saltiest headline I have ever seen.

The funniest part is that the elector is doing exactly what he's supposed to do according to the Constitution. If there's a bad candidate, the electors are expected to choose a better candidate, even if it means voting against the popular vote in their state.

The writer claims that the elector needs to do his job. The elector IS doing his job.

>Brave Native American elector defies evil white establishment of Democratic party
>Online racist outraged

Spread it

It would be pretty cool if something were to happen to that faithless elector.

Literally Also, since then, another Democratic elector in Washington said that he's not certain if he'll vote for her, either. That's potentially 2, and Satiacum said when he first came out that he got calls from other electors praising him, so he thinks others might follow his lead.

>yfw the FBI revolt we wanted gets replaced by an electoral college revolt

HOL UP

HOL UP

HOLUPHOLUPHOLUPHOLUPHOLUPHOLUP

>I hope they fine you more than the $1,000 that is standard for “faithless electors.”

THATS IT????

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE VOTE AND THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THEIR TRUST IST JUST 1K??

WHY ISNT TRUMP BRIBING EVERY ELECTOR???

WHY ISNT EVERY ELLECTION FUCING RIGGED FROM THE ONSET?????

In roughly half of the states, there isn't even a legal penalty for being a faithless elector. Washington decided to institute one, and keep it at $1,000.

It's a state-by-state thing whether they decide to punish faithless electors or not.

It's not breaking people's trust, because the entire idea of the electoral college is to be wiser and more level-headed to political affairs than the general population.

But doesnt that render votes useless, also how do you become an elector?

>live in a republic
>get mad when it doesn't work like a democracy

but, this is so ridiculous... there is a big chance this election will be decided by a single electoral vote if Trump holds into FL, NC and NV... are you telling me a single fagget from WA can elect the POTUS????

Doesn't render voters useless, because voters are voting for which candidate('s party) gets to pick their state's electors.

The political parties choose their electors, so I suppose they determine how someone becomes an elector.

then why arent parties just planting moles for the elector roles???

I cant believe this. Are you telling me a couple of unknown faggets can steal the US election?

Think of it this way: to bribe an elector, they would have to approach a member of the opposing political party. If that goes wrong, that would go SUPER fucking wrong.

99% of electors keep to their state's choice, and a faithless elector has never determined the outcome of an election. It's also pretty much suicide within their political party if they ditch even if the state doesn't have a legal penalty, ESPECIALLY if it changes the election outcome.

Because there's an even number of electors, a single vote would only mean the difference between a victory or a tie at best. In this situation, a tie (or neither candidate reaching a majority) would mean a victory for him since the House and Senate are likely to be GOP-dominated after this election.

>unknown
We know who all of them are.

They aren't planting moles because it seems to be an extremely valuable position within the party by the looks of it, and given the weight of the college.

Oh, and one more thing: Congress might decide while counting the electors' votes that the certificate of vote from a state (which is where the electors write who they voted for) wasn't "regularly given" if there's a faithless elector vote on it. This almost happened once, I believe in 1968, but it was allowed to stand because it didn't impact the results of the election.