How many Faithless Electors will there be this year?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

In light of numerous Republican electors expressing their disdain of Trump, and some even saying they won't vote for him (and possibly many more not making that public, because they aren't idiots), how many electors will go faithless this year? All elections in the 20th/21st centuries save one (1912, in which 8 electors were technically faithless) that qualify, had 1 faithless elector, with the most recent being 2004.

An elector is technically a faithless elector if they deviate from either the Presidential or Vice Presidential ballot.

[Ronnie]

I'm guessing there won't be more than three or four.

[MIKESOWELL]

I think that there will be three to five faithless electors this year.

[ProudModerate2]

The fact that it looks like trump is going to get creamed in the election, I would say at least 2.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

One. An Indiana delegate will "conveniently" write Pence's name instead for president

[Enduro]

A couple, at least. These two candidates are disliked by a lot of people.

[Xing]

One. An Indiana delegate will "conveniently" write Pence's name instead for president

Will this elector misspell Pence's last name, by any chance?

[Bojack Horseman]

I'll say one. Either Pence or Paul Ryan will get an electoral vote.

[Indy Texas]

One. An Indiana delegate will "conveniently" write Pence's name instead for president

Will this elector misspell Pence's last name, by any chance?

Maybe something like...

Hillary Rodham Clinton / Timothy Kaine - 359 votes
Donald J. Trump / Michael R. Pence - 177 votes
Micheal R. Pence (sic) / Donald J. Trump - 1 vote (faithless elector from Indiana)
Gary Johnson / William Weld - 1 vote (faithless elector from Utah)

[Lyin' Steve]

I hope none, and faithless electors ought to be banned.  It made sense when it was essentially a heavily-guided oligarchy, but now that it's just whoever there's no reason to trust them anymore than say Congress.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's never been a case during the current party system that a major party has had more than one faithless elector in an election.  Trump is divisive but at most two or three electors might be faithless and I wouldn't be surprised if he had no faithless electors.  It's fairly easy for those who don't want to be a Trump elector to decline the honor and that's the most likely course for most.

[Stranger in a strange land]

1 Indiana Elector will vote for Mike Pence
1 Texas Elector will vote for Ted Cruz
1 Utah  Elector will vote for McMullin
1 Vermont Elector will vote for Bernie Sanders

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If its a landslide there may be 1 abstaining from Trump

[Tender Branson]

Aren't there like 20 or so states that have unbound electoral college members ?

So it could potentially be many, but in reality not more than 5-10 (worst case).

[Good Habit]

Well, the real clue, establishment Republicans should try to achieve - would be a result like R 274 EV /
D 264 EV. But of the 274 R Electors, say 6 - 8 go faithless, so there are 4 votes for Paul Ryan, 2 for Romney, one for Cruz and one for Jeb...
So, with 266 EV for Trump and 264 for Clinton, + 4 for Ryan, the House have to choose between Trump, Clinton and Ryan... If sufficient Republican Delegations would vote for Ryan, there could be a stalemate, and Mike Pence becomes acting President, unless / or until to House one day still elects a President...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, the real clue, establishment Republicans should try to achieve - would be a result like R 274 EV /
D 264 EV. But of the 274 R Electors, say 6 - 8 go faithless, so there are 4 votes for Paul Ryan, 2 for Romney, one for Cruz and one for Jeb...
So, with 266 EV for Trump and 264 for Clinton, + 4 for Ryan, the House have to choose between Trump, Clinton and Ryan... If sufficient Republican Delegations would vote for Ryan, there could be a stalemate, and Mike Pence becomes acting President, unless / or until to House one day still elects a President...

I believe that this plan is already in effect.

[Arbitrage1980]

Well, the real clue, establishment Republicans should try to achieve - would be a result like R 274 EV /
D 264 EV. But of the 274 R Electors, say 6 - 8 go faithless, so there are 4 votes for Paul Ryan, 2 for Romney, one for Cruz and one for Jeb...
So, with 266 EV for Trump and 264 for Clinton, + 4 for Ryan, the House have to choose between Trump, Clinton and Ryan... If sufficient Republican Delegations would vote for Ryan, there could be a stalemate, and Mike Pence becomes acting President, unless / or until to House one day still elects a President...

I believe that this plan is already in effect.

No way this happens

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

I could see 2-4. I suspect there will be at least 1, even if it's an abstention as in 2000 in DC.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Aren't there like 20 or so states that have unbound electoral college members ?

So it could potentially be many, but in reality not more than 5-10 (worst case).

Yeah, but in most of the rest of states, while the elector may face legal penalties, their vote itself remains as is and valid. So yeah, an elector might get fined or whatever for voting for Johnson or whoever, but in all but like two or three states, their vote is still a vote for Johnson and will be counted as such in congress.

[RosettaStoned]

  Two at most. 

[IceSpear]

I think it's actually far more likely to get faithless electors if Trump loses rather than if he wins. That way they can "stand on principle" without actually changing the result and throwing us into a constitutional crisis.