How many electoral votes will Ron Paul receive?

[Meeker]

I think it's pretty likely he gets at least one.

[SPC]

He'll likely get one each from Alaska and Texas. Unfortunately Romney lost all the states where Paul forces took over the GOP. If Romney had done better in Nevada and Iowa, there would be considerably more Paul votes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

0

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hopefully one or two.

[Meeker]

He'll likely get one each from Alaska and Texas. Unfortunately Romney lost all the states where Paul forces took over the GOP. If Romney had done better in Nevada and Iowa, there would be considerably more Paul votes.

Oh, I didn't realize that all of the stray electors had been defeated. That's no fun.

[Maxwell]

If any? 1, possibly from Nevada or Texas.

[Bacon King]

IIRC an elector from Texas stated their intention to cast an EV for Paul if they weren't the deciding vote.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The 538 electors will respond to the call of liberty and vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

0

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The 538 electors will respond to the call of liberty and vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

[SPC]

If any? 1, possibly from Nevada or Texas.

Obama won Nevada, and I doubt a Democrat's going to cross the aisle to vote for Paul.

[Bacon King]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't think he'll get any, but it's certainly possible.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

0 but for fun let's hope AK drops its electoral votes for Paul, it doesn't matter anyways.

[wdolson]

I doubt he will get any.  However if he does, I think there will be a push to pass an amendment to eliminate the electoral college. 

[SPC]

I doubt he will get any.  However if he does, I think there will be a push to pass an amendment to eliminate the electoral college. 

Just like Mike Padden's vote for Reagan in 1976 pushed the movement to abolish the electoral college to the forefront of public discourse.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

Alaska is one of those states that have laws to penalise faithless electors.

I doubt he will get any.  However if he does, I think there will be a push to pass an amendment to eliminate the electoral college. 

Yeah... just like in 2000, 2004, 1988, 1976, 1968, 1960, 1956 and 1948.

[Mr. Morden]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

Since the current system of using statewide popular vote to determine the electoral college votes arose, has there ever been a case in which the *majority* of a state's electors became faithless electors?  And if this happened with Alaska this year, how would people draw the electoral map?

[Speed of Sound]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

Alaska is one of those states that have laws to penalise faithless electors.

I doubt he will get any.  However if he does, I think there will be a push to pass an amendment to eliminate the electoral college. 

Yeah... just like in 2000, 2004, 1988, 1976, 1968, 1960, 1956 and 1948.

If third time's a charm, ninth time is a triple charm!

[SPC]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

Since the current system of using statewide popular vote to determine the electoral college votes arose, has there ever been a case in which the *majority* of a state's electors became faithless electors?  And if this happened with Alaska this year, how would people draw the electoral map?

1836 if you count vice-presidential elections.

[Mr. Morden]

I doubt he will get any.  However if he does, I think there will be a push to pass an amendment to eliminate the electoral college. 

Yeah... just like in 2000, 2004, 1988, 1976, 1968, 1960, 1956 and 1948.

There won't be a constitutional amendment, but if Republicans have to keep worrying about a Paul-ite insurgency in the electoral college, it might soften some GOP opposition to the NPV in a few states.  It's mainly Republicans who are opposing the NPV at the moment, and this gives them a reason to be more skeptical of the electoral college.  (Well, this and the fact that we've now had three consecutive elections in which the tipping point state was more strongly Dem. than the national popular vote was.)

Hey, the Republicans already changed their 2016 primary rules to make it harder on the Paul-ite insurgency.  Why not the rules for the general election as well?

[ag]

State-level NPV movement would be a disaster if it ever succeded. You can't do this without a nationwide electoral reform. You can't have an NPV election without common standards for voter rolls, eligibility, election monitoring, vote counting, etc., etc. At the first close elections after the states with the majority of electoral votes adopt such language, (and "close" could still mean a few million votes), Texas state courts would rule that most votes nationwide were cast for a Republican, and California state courts would rule that most votes were cast for a Democrat, so that different states would have a different NPV winner, and there would be attempts to present multiple electoral vote tallies to the Congress, and there would be arguments in the House which electoral votes are legitimate, and it would all wind up being a mess worse than in 1876.

[rttinker]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

Since the current system of using statewide popular vote to determine the electoral college votes arose, has there ever been a case in which the *majority* of a state's electors became faithless electors?  And if this happened with Alaska this year, how would people draw the electoral map?

In 1960 some southern Democrats were not pleased with John F. Kennedy as the nominee, and knowing that the Kennedy vs. Nixon election was going to be extremely close, there was an attempt to throw the election into the House of Representatives (in states where strong anti-Kennedy Democrats held power) by having enough electors vote for someone other than Kennedy or Nixon, denying either an EC majority.

To wit, Mississippi put a separate slate of "unpledged Democratic electors" on the ballot in addition to the 2 major candidates. The unpledged slate won 39-36% and the electors cast their 8 votes for Harry F. Byrd. He wasn't on the ballot, but the electors weren't "faithless" since they were unpledged.

In Alabama, however, Kennedy won 56% of the vote... however, some anti-Kennedy electors were put on Kennedy's (official) slate of electors. The result, Harry F. Byrd got 6 of Alabama's electoral votes, John F. Kennedy got 5. That's the only recent faithless victory I'm aware of.

And of course the plan didn't work - despite the narrow national PV margin, Kennedy got over 300 EV's making the 15 cast for Harry F. Byrd (1 from OK also) irrelevant.

[Eraserhead]

Maybe one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just learned that apparently Alaska's entire Republican Electoral College slate is Paultards. Even if only two of the three decide to be faithless electors, that's still a whole state for Paul!

Since the current system of using statewide popular vote to determine the electoral college votes arose, has there ever been a case in which the *majority* of a state's electors became faithless electors?  And if this happened with Alaska this year, how would people draw the electoral map?

In 1960 some southern Democrats were not pleased with John F. Kennedy as the nominee, and knowing that the Kennedy vs. Nixon election was going to be extremely close, there was an attempt to throw the election into the House of Representatives (in states where strong anti-Kennedy Democrats held power) by having enough electors vote for someone other than Kennedy or Nixon, denying either an EC majority.

To wit, Mississippi put a separate slate of "unpledged Democratic electors" on the ballot in addition to the 2 major candidates. The unpledged slate won 39-36% and the electors cast their 8 votes for Harry F. Byrd. He wasn't on the ballot, but the electors weren't "faithless" since they were unpledged.

In Alabama, however, Kennedy won 56% of the vote... however, some anti-Kennedy electors were put on Kennedy's (official) slate of electors. The result, Harry F. Byrd got 6 of Alabama's electoral votes, John F. Kennedy got 5. That's the only recent faithless victory I'm aware of.

And of course the plan didn't work - despite the narrow national PV margin, Kennedy got over 300 EV's making the 15 cast for Harry F. Byrd (1 from OK also) irrelevant.

Should be noted that while AL and MS electors that voted for Byrd casted their vice presidential votes for Strom Thurmond, the one from OK (a Republican) voted for Goldwater for VP.

This Republican faithless elector from Oklahoma (Henry D. Irwin) is an interesting case. He actually attempted to change the election outcome, trying to get fellow Republican electors to work togehter on this. He sent a telegram to each one of them, saying:

You must be logged in to read this quote.