This article discusses the decision by an Electoral College voter to resign from his post. Art Sisneros, a welding supply salesman, was chosen to be one of 38 electors to represent the Texas Republican slate during the Republican state convention in May. Although he signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee with his vote, Mr. Sisneros has decided that he would rather resign from his post. He cites his belief that "voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God," as justification for his decision. He also believes it to be an alternative to becoming a "faithless elector," who is a person who votes for another candidate rather than their party's nominee.
In class we discussed the pros and cons of the electoral college system currently in place. Do you believe that Mr. Sisneros has an obligation to vote for Mr. Trump, or do you believe resigning is justified? Keep in mind that the remaining electors are almost certain to choose a supporter or Mr. Trump as a replacement for Mr. Sisneros. To take things farther, should Mr. Sisneros respond to calls from many voters who cite Secretary Clinton's lead in the popular vote and vote for a candidate besides Mr. Trump? Finally, what do you expect the public's reaction to this decision to be?
In class we discussed the pros and cons of the electoral college system currently in place. Do you believe that Mr. Sisneros has an obligation to vote for Mr. Trump, or do you believe resigning is justified? Keep in mind that the remaining electors are almost certain to choose a supporter or Mr. Trump as a replacement for Mr. Sisneros. To take things farther, should Mr. Sisneros respond to calls from many voters who cite Secretary Clinton's lead in the popular vote and vote for a candidate besides Mr. Trump? Finally, what do you expect the public's reaction to this decision to be?
“Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector.”
ReplyDeleteHonestly, what.a.guy. I wouldn't expect to really agree with anything a Presidential Elector from Texas, or really anywhere in the south, had to say about who to vote for (stereotypically), but I have respect for Sisneros for doing what he did. Yeah, ok, people chose him to be an elector, but that still doesn't bind him to anything. At the end of it all, he is a person with opinions, and it would be hard to vote against one's own position, especially if one felt as strongly as he. In the end, I think Sisneros made the right decision for the sake of his job and personal safety, too. It would have been much harder to face the public after voting, with as big of a say as he had, for someone they didn't want, rather than just stepping down. I believe it would have been much more dangerous for him. The community if probably surprised, but some are also probably just happy that he didn't go against what the community wanted.
One of my favorite Mark Twain quotes is "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." This quote applies just as much to politics as it does life in general. Texas is the epitome of a red state and has been that way since the 1980's, so one could only imagine how difficult it was for the Texas presidential elector to announce he wouldn't be voting on the Republican ticket. And for that I praise Mr. Sisneros, not because I agree with his politics, but because I respect anyone who has the guts to go against the sheep in society who blindly follow the popular trend. That being said, I believe it was only fair that Mr. Sisneros stepped down from his position after swearing to vote Republican then later refusing to vote for Donald Trump. As for public reception to this decision, you'd have to be more specific. The textbook describes multiple "publics" in American politics and each would respond in a different way. White Texans would be ashamed of Sisneros and would quickly replace him (they did), but everyone should be proud of Art Sisneros for sticking to his guns and doing what he felt was right.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I'm sure that Sisneros received a great deal of backlash for what he did. He also made the honorable decision of stepping down after not wanting to abide by the original agreement.
DeleteGood for Art Sisneros. Although he was kind of contractually obligated to vote for Trump, whatever pledge he took goes against what the electoral college really is. As much as I loathe the electoral college it is supposed to be a group of qualified citizens who do their own thinking and come up with whoever they think is going to be the best leader for the United States. (At least I think that's the gist of it. I'm too lazy to find that article we read for class about it and fix what I just said.) Their votes shouldn't be the byproduct of some pledge. Even if he were still in the group of electors and couldn't bear to vote for Trump, he shouldn't have to listen to everyone else and vote for Hillary. Based on his general election vote Sisneros wasn't satisfied with either candidate and would be happier casting his electoral vote for the man he wrote in. Of course Trump's supporters will be happy he's gone but for myself and maybe some other people, it just adds a new level of hopelessness to this situation.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would like to see a faithless elector miracle, I believe it would set a dangerous precedent if Trump was to lose the Electoral College after he won it fairly. Both candidates knew they were competing for the electoral vote, not the popular vote. Certainly, this elector has no obligation to vote for Trump. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Electors have to vote for the winner of their state, but he could be fined or face a minor punishment depending on whether or not Texas has any laws against faithless electors. However, it is right that he stepped down because it is looked upon unfavorably if you go against with the majority of voters of your state. Most of the public probably won't care about this resignation because one elector is not going to change the outcome of the election.
ReplyDeleteI think Art Sisneros made the correct choice in resigning. Although a faithless elector just might be what most want to see, it is not something that should happen during this election with the tension between sides already. I don't think electors should listen to the calls to go against the determined results, for as Josh said, it would set a very dangerous precedent. It would untimately mean that these electors decide the election, not the people. I don't beleive the public will react harshly to this decision, if they react at all, because it will most likely lead to the same result no matter who is the elector.
ReplyDeleteI believe what Mr. Sisneros did is honorable. He understood his tie to the Republican party, but was places in an impossible situation. Although a contract was signed, electors are basically allowed to do what they want. He was not completely faithless because he didn’t vote for a person he promised to not vote for, or went against what his state wanted, is resigned. He could be considered a respectable name. He knew the repercussions of his actions and took the best approach that would accomplish what he feels is both moral and ethical.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Sisneros was right to resign, because if he did not, he would've voted against Trump. It was his duty to vote for the winner of the state, and therefore, if he could not bring himself to vote for that winner, it is better that he did not stay in the electoral vote. I do not think he should act against the system, rather if he had a problem with it (which he may not), then he should not be a part of it and work against it otherwise. I think some republicans may be angry with him, but in the end they got their electoral vote and he did the right thing for himself and for the Texan people by dropping out and letting someone else take the lead on voting for Trump.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Sisneros made the honorable decision here. By choosing not to vote over voting for the opposition, he walked a path that was fair for both his moral standards (which I'm thankful that this person has, and stands for) and the population he was chosen to vote for. However, I find it a shame that we don't see more of this, as it seems that most elected positions tend to pursue actions that guarantee job safety instead of expressing their own morals and standing up for their beliefs. While I still think that most would act as they already do, it would be nice to see more elected officials whose decisions aren't just a given due to the public majority. I mean, I guess there has to be a basic level of following public will over personal choice in order to have the government function somewhat accordingly to the people, but this just seems way too common as of now, and I really am scared to see where this could come back later. I think that there will obviously be mixed reactions to Sisneros's actions, but no real outrage. However, I'm not resolved on the idea that Sisneros should vote for another party over Trump for external reasons, as I'm not sure what kind of precedent this could encourage.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Sisneros made a legitimate and justified decision to resign. Since he decided that if he voted for Trump he would have done so against his moral compass, he was right not to vote. All of the liberal in me wants him to vote against his state and his party; however, I know that's not the way the game is played. Since he believed being an elector was "sinful" I understand his decision to resign. That said in elementary school they teach you that if you stand by and watch someone being bullied it is just as bad as being the bully. Sisneros might as well have stayed an elector. The outcome is the same, but whatever helps him sleep at night I suppose. I don't think the public will be upset. In the end, Texans get a new Trump-loving elector, who will be happy to vote the way the public wants without feeling morally unfit to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn politics, it's difficult to abide to your values in the face of political criticism. I have a lot of respect for Sisneros for doing this. Technically, he was contractually obligated to vote for Trump (I believe if he didn't, he would have to pay a small fine). Now I'm not advocating for breaking the law, but I'm also not advocating for voting for Trump. So I think Sisneros made the right decision to resign. With the chaos and tension this election so high, something like this would definitely no doubt catch the public's eye, as millions of liberals nationwide cross their fingers for 37 electors to become "faithless" and abandon their contractual obligation to vote for Trump. While this is highly unlikely, we can only hope. It's still good to see someone such as Sisneros standing up for what he believe in.
ReplyDeleteSisneros was right to resign in my opinion. It was better for him to resign than to vote for Hillary and against what the people voted. If he couldn't get himself to vote for Trump, then resigning is the best option for everyone. He won't have to vote for him, and the Republicans can find someone else who will and still get their vote. I don't think many people would care because it is just one electoral vote out of many in the election, and Trump already won the presidency. This event is merely sending a message but it won't change anything in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe whole freaking point of the Electoral College is that the every day American citizen is not smart enough to vote in the election. And, if this election has proven anything, that hasn't changed. You've got legitimate GOP pundits saying that we shouldn't count California and NY because they're always going to go overwhelmingly Democratic. I mean, what the... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Yes, he did a good thing, but I don't think he did his job. Faithless electors are kind of the point of the EC, if we're going to have one at all. I don't see a point in keeping it just for pageantry, so if we're going to keep it at all, which we shouldn't, he should've voted for Clinton. Oh. Well.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer in the notion that if you feel something is wrong, you shouldn't do it. Contractually obligated or not, Sisneros did not believe in Trump. He believed, in fact, that Trump was going to be a disaster for America, claiming voting for Trump would be nothing short of an act against God. Sisneros clearly did not believe in Trump, and if he did not believe in him then why should he be obligated to vote for him? The entire foundation of democracy is for people to vote for who they believe the worthy candidate is. However, while I do not agree with making the electors sign contracts, he did sign one; therefore, he is contractually obligated to vote as he said he would, unless he resigned. I believe his resignation is perfectly justified, as it is the compromise between preserving true democracy in the form of voting for who you believe in and performing your obligated duties (in this case, voting as you said you would). I believe Sisneros made the right decision in voting for who he felt was the best man for the job, and he should not bend to the will of others when he does not believe the candidate running will do a good job at all.
ReplyDeleteI think this is fine. If you don't want to vote for someone, you don't have to. I'm glad that he resigned as an electoral voter because, as much as I hate to admit it, Trump did win the electoral vote. He deserves that vote and the people of his state have decided who they want to vote for, so he should listen. Stepping down was the right thing to do. He neither has to vote for Trump nor go against the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is justified. If Sisneros had voted against the people's wishes rather than stepping down, I think it would have been more of a problem. Obviously, there is no Constitutional obligation for him to vote with how the people voted, but if he had it probably would have ruined his political career. I think stepping down was a noble action. This man couldn't morally justify voting for Trump, and he is sticking to his moral code. He is doing nothing unconstitutional or wrong; in fact, by stepping down and allowing for another to fill his place, he is being quite noble, as he knows that there will still be a vote for Trump. He could have gone behind his voters' backs, but he did the noble thing.
ReplyDeleteI respect Mr. Sisneros's decision to resign. Many people called for electors to adhere to the popular vote and elect Hillary Clinton, but the idea of so many electors turning faithless in not only unlikely, but would be unprecedented and lead to civil unrest. Mr. Sisneros is able to avoid putting himself in a potentially political vulnerable position by stepping down while still retaining his morals, and that's something he has the right to do.
ReplyDeleteMr. Sisneros's definitely has class. This is how you make a statement against Trump, while keeping safe relations with your Republican friends in the state. I am glad that he stuck with his morals by both not voting for Trump and knowing that Trump earned the vote and giving it to someone else. I absolutely love the fact that Sisneros describes being an elector for Trump as sinful. I fully expect Trump to hop on Twitter and start calling out this guy. Again, props to Sisneros for sticking to his morals.
ReplyDeleteI admire Sisneros for his loophole, though, unlike Matt, I don't think this'll make a big splash. The election is, unfortunately, over at this point. It's wistful thinking to think that any amount of signatures to a petition can impeach Trump; it's not in our constitution. I do think we need a change to our electoral college, but, like ObamaCare, I wouldn't want to remove it without a confident alternative plan.
ReplyDeleteAgain, though, kudos to Mr. Sisneros for taking the road less traveled by. Should he have voted for another candidate, I'm sure that we would've heard about it for weeks with a far worse outcome.