Can WA replace its two potential rogue electors?

[Ozymandias]

Noticed that a second WA elector said they might not vote for Hillary.

Anyone know what the legal options are for replacing these two electors?

[Dr. Arch]

They are bound by law in WA.

[izixs]

They are bound by law in WA.

Different states have different rules when it comes to their bound by law rules. Some automatically make the votes of unfaithful electors reflect the state votes, others replace the elector with an alternate, and others impose a fine. The latter of the three could still result in an unfaithful vote if the person is willing to accept the fine. Best check the law in WA on the specifics there.

[Sir Mohamed]

Disgusting. Being an elector should be considered a high honor and not something to gamble with.

[Ljube]

Freedom fighters!

[zorkpolitics]

"Different states have different rules when it comes to their bound by law rules. Some automatically make the votes of unfaithful electors reflect the state votes, others replace the elector with an alternate, and others impose a fine. "

But none of these laws have ever been tested in court.  There is a very strong argument to be made that the Constitution gives the Electors the right to vote and no state can restrict that vote.

Certainly over the last century about a dozen faithless electors have voted their conscientious, and all of these votes have been accepted by Congress as official votes.  That is a pretty strong precedent that implies states can't remove an elector just because he doesn't vote for the state winner.

[Xing]

So wonderful to see that our electors have no respect for us, the voters. They should absolutely be replaced.

[RI]

Electors have no obligation to follow the popular vote. If anything their existence serves as a check against the popular vote.

[Ebsy]

It's very likely not going to matter.

[Person Man]

Yeah. If this causes Trump to be president, even if he loses the PV, it is going to make this an entire election a slap in the face to the entire world. Trump might as well change the flag to be a mashup of the confederate flag, a swastika, and a middle finger. And change "E Pluribus Unum" to "  You.".

[evergreenarbor]

So wonderful to see that our electors have no respect for us, the voters. They should absolutely be replaced.

This.

It seems like the law only charges faithless electors a $1000 fine. I think the state government needs to update that, because the fine clearly isn't high enough to change behavior.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I reminded of Hale Boggs' proposal to retain the EC, while eliminating the electors. A number of EVs would just be automatically assigned to a winner.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Electors have no obligation to follow the popular vote. If anything their existence serves as a check against the popular vote.

And this is exactly why the electoral college itself is a deplorable idea.

[Alaska2392]

Just to be clear, at least last time I read the Seattle Times, one of the electors "wasn't committed".  To my ears that sounds like "I want my 15 minutes of fame, but I'm going to vote Clinton in the end.  I'm just trying to make everyone get really nervous".

[cwt]

There are faithless electors all the time, who cares?

[Hammy]

I reminded of Hale Boggs' proposal to retain the EC, while eliminating the electors. A number of EVs would just be automatically assigned to a winner.

Honestly this is the only way the EC can really retain any legitimacy with me, and something I've been hoping for years to see happen--I even wrote a paper in high school on the subject.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There are faithless electors all the time, who cares?

Haven't occurred since 2004, actually, and 2004 ("John Ewards") was probably just an idiot making a mistake. 2000 (D.C. elector abstaining) was more of a "serious" last time. Before that it was 1988.

[cwt]

There are faithless electors all the time, who cares?

Haven't occurred since 2004, actually, and 2004 ("John Ewards") was probably just an idiot making a mistake. 2000 (D.C. elector abstaining) was more of a "serious" last time. Before that it was 1988.

So we're due.

There have been 5 faithless electors in the last 11 elections (going back to 1972), so it happens on average every other election.

[bagelman]

They would've been less likely to speak out, BEFORE the election, if they knew they could be replaced by the state or party.

This doesn't prove anything, they could just not know, just an observation.

[Desroko]

I reminded of Hale Boggs' proposal to retain the EC, while eliminating the electors. A number of EVs would just be automatically assigned to a winner.

Honestly this is the only way the EC can really retain any legitimacy with me, and something I've been hoping for years to see happen--I even wrote a paper in high school on the subject.

Are we the same people? I wrote that paper too.

Btw, the constitutional argument against faithless elector laws is bunk. States have plenary authority over electors. McPherson v. Blacker (1892)

That's a double-edged sword that is bound to cause problems one day, like the PA legislature trying to carve the states into districts and hand a majority of its EVs to Romney. But in this case it's actually pro-democracy.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Electors have no obligation to follow the popular vote. If anything their existence serves as a check against the popular vote.

This is true, as Hamilton argued in Federalist No 68. The electors are the "In case of emergency, break glass" option for preventing a dangerous person from rising to power. Unfortunately, the electors being discussed in Washington have a decidedly warped view of which candidate is the dangerous one in this election.

To be clear, I fully support Washington if they can replace these two clowns. But that doesn't change the historical reasoning for the EC.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

2004 ("John Ewards") was probably just an idiot making a mistake.

[Spark]

Usually the side who has faithless electors, loses.

[they don't love you like i love you]

If that guy ends up being a decisive vote he'll probably recuse himself and allow an alternate to replace him. Imagine the outrage and hounding he'd receive otherwise.

[Blackacre]

Usually the side who has faithless electors, loses.

If true, (I'm taking your word for it) it's probably a reverse causation: the EC meets after the returns are in and the Presidency is a foredone conclusion. So the losing side probably feels freer to not vote for the person they were sent to vote for because it doesn't matter. The winning side won't because everybody voting in tandem is required for the winning candidate to, well, win.

Example: the faithless Democratic electors in 2000 and 2004 wouldn't have been faithless had their candidate won