LETTER: ‘Faithless elector’ puts his own narrow interests above the electorate’s

Satiacum critic

I am outraged by the decision of a Democratic elector, Robert Satiacum, to refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College.

Even though Hillary Clinton has already conceded, the Electoral College will meet Dec. 19.

As a matter of principle, an elector should vote for the candidate selected by popular vote.

Robert Satiacum is a Puyallup tribe Native American who says that Clinton does not care enough for Native American issues to suit him personally (“State Elector Says He Won’t Vote For Clinton,” Nov. 6, PDN).

Satiacum puts his narrow interests over the many interests of the entire Washington electorate.

Washington sends 12 electors to the Electoral College.

Washington has 4,271,911 registered voters.

By being a “faithless elector,” Satiacum intends to personally nullify one-twelfth of registered Washington votes, potentially 355,993 votes.

The state’s Native American/Alaska Native population is less than 2 percent of the Washington population.

Even if every single Native American voter agreed with Satiacum (doubtful), he would still not have the right to nullify the majority votes of the non-Native electorate.

Washington has a “winner take all” electoral system in which the winner of the popular vote gets all the electors.

According to the article, Satiacum faces a $1,000 fine for being a “faithless elector,” but he said he doesn’t care about the penalty.

The Democratic Party should replace Satiacum as an elector immediately.

Failing that, the penalty for being a faithless elector should be raised until it is truly a deterrent, e.g., $1 million.

Wendy Goldberg,