View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health.

Texas Elector Resigns, Claims Trump Not 'Biblically Qualified' to Serve as President

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas Elector Resigns, Claims Trump Not 'Biblically Qualified' to Serve as President

    Texas resident and Republican elector Art Sisneros chose to resign rather than cast a vote for Donald Trump or become a “faithless elector” and vote for someone else.

    Writing about his decision in a November 26th blog post, Sisneros reviewed the difference between a constitutional republic and a direct democracy. The framers of the Constitution set our government up so that it was governed by representatives the people chose rather than the people themselves. One example of this is the electoral college, which is ultimately tasked with electing the President of the United States.

    In contrast to the first several presidential elections, many state political parties now ask their electors to take a pledge to vote for the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the state’s General Election. Sisneros took this pledge, but then found himself in a dilemma because, as he stated, “I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God.”

    He explained his reasoning for this conclusion in a blog post the day before the election.

    In light of this conviction, Sisneros believed that he only had three options moving forward. He could swallow his conscience and vote for Donald Trump, break the pledge and vote for someone other than Trump, or resign his position as an elector. To be true to his conscience and his word, he resigned.

    The electors in Texas will choose a replacement in time for the December 19 vote.

    Source: Scott Slayton - Christian News Headlines

  • #2
    Having perused his blog post I wonder what his stance would have been should Texas had gone to Hillary. Would he have resigned then also because she is a woman? His choice to resign almost smells of cowardice.
    Comment>

    • #3
      I actually respect Sisnero's integrity. This is a perfect example as to why there are so few "Men of Faith" in politics. At the end of the day, we can wash our hands clean, but there are things like conscience which do not wash clean so easily.

      Personally, I don't understand why the electorate would go to whoever won a states popular vote. What's the sense to have an Electoral vote then? What kinda check and balance would that be?

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Why would it not go to whoever won the popular vote. If it didn't it would mean the electoral system is a sham, and holding a general election would be irrelevant.

        Personally, I think he is really dodging his duty by resigning because they will just choose another elector who will then have the obligation to vote for Trump. If he really wanted to make an influence he would remained in his position and then used his influence to push forward changed that need to made.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Knotical View Post
          Why would it not go to whoever won the popular vote. If it didn't it would mean the electoral system is a sham, and holding a general election would be irrelevant.
          Likewise, explain this to me like a four year old. If the electorate vote is only going to go to whoever won the state, why not do away with the electorate vote and allow just the popular vote to decide?

          Why does America look like the PCUSA, Knotical? Don't get me wrong, I understand how a disconnected Electoral College can go against the will of the people, but isn't that the point? A Check and Balance...

          This actually has worked in Trump's favor today.

          God bless,
          William
          Comment>

          • #6
            This came in from Allen B. West:

            Less entertaining were the violent protests which were paid for erupted in cities across the nation.

            Putting aside Jill Stein’s quixotic effort to force a recount, the left has been loudest with its demands to dismantle the Electoral College.

            After all it’s unfair: Hillary Clinton won the “popular vote” so she should win, right?

            Wrong.

            Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

            The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

            Share this with as many whiners as you can.

            There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

            Trump won 3,084 of them.
            Clinton won 57.

            There are 62 counties in New York State.

            Trump won 46 of them.
            Clinton won 16.

            Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

            In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

            Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

            These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
            The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

            When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

            Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

            Amen.
            Comment>

            • #7
              True, but if you believe some of the stories coming out about the popular vote this could have gone Hillary's way. Now I am not a truly big supporter of the electoral college, but it does expedite things when it comes to something as big as the presidential election. Think of controversy should we go completely by popular vote and we have more races that are as close as this one.

              It is said that having the electoral college levels the playing field for all of the states giving the smaller states the same influence as the bigger ones, but that is really a fallacy. If they really wanted to level the playing field they would limit the amount of electoral votes to two per state. Currently it is based on population, so indirectly it is the popular vote that decides elections, it is just that the electoral college makes coming to these decisions faster and easier. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set this up.

              Just ask yourself this: would we be better off as a true democracy or as a representative republic (as we are now).
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Knotical View Post
                Just ask yourself this: would we be better off as a true democracy or as a representative republic (as we are now).
                Of course I am against a true democracy. Hillary is now 2.5 million votes ahead of Trump, and while I understand what you're saying, it just doesn't make sense to me, or at least the Electoral College being an "indicator" for the Popular vote for quickness of a tally fails considering she's actually ahead. At least Hillary's argument is that the Electoral College isn't meant to override the popular vote - that's a question? Does the Electoral College have the authority to override the popular vote? Yes, it seems so today.... . this is now twice in my lifetime that I have seen the Electoral College decide the next president in my Party's favor. What I am trying to understand was whether that was a forethought and a power by design that our forefathers had planned?

                I read a comment on a site that answers my question, but the site isn't one that I hear of or offers a comprehensive explanation:

                The electoral college decides the presidential vote because they wanted a division of power between the gov and people. They wanted to give people some power, such as voting for the president they want. The electors usually vote for the president that the majority of the people from his/her state, but they can override it. However, people vote for electors as well, so most of the time the electors will vote for what the people want. They do this because they want a boundary of power between government and people. Hope this helped!
                God bless,
                William
                Comment>
                Working...
                X
                Articles - News - SiteMap