Clinton electors lobbying for EC protest votes? *UPDATE* 29 electors want intel briefing

[The Other Castro]

This is going to make for a very interesting map.

[Pericles]

Trump won, not Kasich. I'd maybe be OK with the EC voting Clinton, but otherwise they should vote for the person who ran and won. Trump won a legitimate victory. He will be President, period.

[The Other Castro]

I think these are the confirmed ones so far, though I may be wrong.

[Nym90]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Trump could become the first winning candidate to have a faithless elector since Nixon in 1972. Faithless electors since then have all defected from losing candidates (Ford in 1976, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004).

The last time that there was more than one faithless elector in an election was technically 1912, but that was a unique circumstance since the Republican Vice Presidential candidate died before the election and after it was too late to remove him from the ballot....so the fact that Taft's electors didn't vote for him shouldn't really count IMO.

So you'd have to go back to 1896 to find the last instance of more than one faithless elector in an election in which the candidate to whom they were pledged was still alive....there were four that year, but all for Vice President only, none for President.

The last time that there were multiple faithless electors for President in one election was in 1872, though again that was a unique situation since Greeley died after the election but before the EC could convene.

You have to go back to 1832 to find the last time there were multiple faithless electors for a Presidential candidate who was alive (there were two that year).

The last time there were more than two was in 1808, when there were six.

And so if Clinton ends up having seven (or more), it would be the most since 1796 when the electors cast two votes for President instead of separate votes for President and Vice President.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The last time that there was more than one faithless elector in an election was technically 1912, but that was a unique circumstance since the Republican Vice Presidential candidate died before the election and after it was too late to remove him from the ballot....so the fact that Taft's electors didn't vote for him shouldn't really count IMO.

Yes, Butler was officially designated by the Republican Party to receive electoral votes Sherman would've received.

I'm not sure how to classify Alabama electors who voted for Byrd in 1960. While Mississippi was a clear case of elected "unpledged" slot, Kennedy did win the vote in Alabama.

There also was a Republican faithless elector from Oklahoma, who had actually tried to influence the election:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wonder what would happen in a very theoretical scenario in which Trump dies before the electors meet. On one hand you can't cast a valid vote for a dead candidate (like with Greeley). On the other hand, in some states, electors wouldn't be allowed to vote for someone else.

I suppose RNC would have to designate a replacement candidate to receive Trump's evs (likely Pence).

[Nym90]

The 1960 Alabama electors who voted for Byrd were also unpledged. The Democratic ticket that year included 6 unpledged electors and 5 Kennedy electors. So the only faithless elector that year was the one in Oklahoma.

[Mr. Morden]

I suppose RNC would have to designate a replacement candidate to receive Trump's evs (likely Pence).

I assume Pence would get it.  Though I suppose the Trump electors aren't bound by the RNC's decision.  They could decide amongst themselves on a replacement candidate.

And we'd also have a very short VP search by Pence, to determine who the electors should vote for for VP.

[Nym90]

I wonder what would happen in a very theoretical scenario in which Trump dies before the electors meet. On one hand you can't cast a valid vote for a dead candidate (like with Greeley). On the other hand, in some states, electors wouldn't be allowed to vote for someone else.

I suppose RNC would have to designate a replacement candidate to receive Trump's evs (likely Pence).

Almost certainly they would vote for Pence.

The constitutionality of state laws requiring a vote for the candidate to whom the electors are pledged is very shaky. The Supreme Court has never been asked to rule on it. This could be the year that will change.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If the election for President was based completely on the popular vote, by far most of the attention from the parties and the candidates would be spent on the large states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey.

The problem with this argument is that, under the current system, candidates limit their campaign to an even smaller circle of "swing states" while ignoring the rest of the nation, including most small states like Wyoming and Vermont where the result is more or less predetermined. The electoral college doesn't force candidates to pay attention to these states because most of them heavily favor one of the two major parties. Under a popular vote system, it might make sense for Democrats to campaign in South Dakota or for Republicans to campaign in Delaware, because the votes they win there would contribute to a national majority even if they end up loosing the state. The current system, however, penalizes those who campaign in states they are unlikely to win and rewards those who focus on a handful of the largest and most competitive states to the exclusion of all others.

It is likewise important to note that the electoral college supplements the voting power of the small states by taking votes away from states where more people live. If electors were distributed proportionally according to population, a state like Wyoming would have a single electoral vote; instead, the current method of allocation awards it three votes, then makes up for this extravagance by disenfranchising Texas and California (both of whom are underrepresented in the electoral college).  The result: a Wyoming ballot is effectively worth three of it's Californian counterparts. For all the impassioned defenders of the electoral college, I am yet to meet one who could make a reasonable argument for why some citizens deserve more representation than others.

[Axel Foley]

So we have the first identified Trump defector, and Kasich is the compromisial candidate chosen by the Dems electors promoters of the effort to convince Republican to dump Trump...will this Texan start a domino effect on his fellow GOPers electors?

[Kolip1]

IM SURE THAT THE EC will VOTE for HILLARY
GET READY for MADAM PRESIDENT

[emailking]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Trump could become the first winning candidate to have a faithless elector since Nixon in 1972. Faithless electors since then have all defected from losing candidates (Ford in 1976, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004).

Hmm, I'm not sure 1988 and 2004 really count. In 1988 the elector just switched Pres. and V.P. And 2004 was most likely just a mistake. They were unexpected results, but possibly not faithless.

[Sir Mohamed]

So, what the heck is the EC result going to be? 300 versus 225 or what?

[Mr. Morden]

This would have been really interesting if Clinton had won both MI and PA while Trump still held on to WI.  That would be Trump 270 - Clinton 268 before any electoral college defections, and we would have had an interesting waiting period this month, seeing if any Trump electors go faithless.

[emailking]

Yeah in that scenario I think the Trump electors would probably hold firm as there's no margin for error, and the Clinton electors would be holding out hope there would be a couple defections to Clinton and so would not be trying to make a mockery of the system. But it would be an interesting waiting period with constant media speculation about faithless electors, like in 2000.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I fully support all faithless votes regardless of whether they vote for Hillary, Bernie, John Kasich or the flying spaghetti monster.
It will make the need for getting rid of the electoral college system more urgent.

[Adam Griffin]

As someone who holds a low-level party office, I can't tell you how many kooky mass emails I've been getting the past month on a daily basis from random people across the country convinced that the Electoral College is winnable; as if I'm in some sort of position to make that happen. Halfway coherent ramblings with lists of elector contact information, "strategies" and stupid clickbait included. I'll be very glad when this is over, for my inbox's sake.

[jimrtex]

As someone who holds a low-level party office, I can't tell you how many kooky mass emails I've been getting the past month on a daily basis from random people across the country convinced that the Electoral College is winnable; as if I'm in some sort of position to make that happen. Halfway coherent ramblings with lists of elector contact information, "strategies" and stupid clickbait included. I'll be very glad when this is over, for my inbox's sake.

Maybe you should take "President" out of your nym.

Do any start with, "Dear Jimmuh" or "My Dear Little Alec"

[The Dowager Mod]

Some posters saying we need to force the electors to follow the will of the people kinda defeats the whole reason they came up with the electoral college in the first place.

[SteveRogers]

Some posters saying we need to force the electors to follow the will of the people kinda defeats the whole reason they came up with the electoral college in the first place.

Yeah, that's classic conservative doublespeak. "We must respect what the founders laid down in the original constitution except for the parts I find inconvenient."

[zorkpolitics]

We already have a historic election:
First non-politician, non-military person to win the Presidency
Largest popular vote deficit for a winner
Largest turnout for a Presidential election
Most votes won by a Republican candidate
Most expensive campaign by a loser


And now we may have the most faithless electors...

[Mr. Morden]

Suprun (the Texas faithless elector) claims there will be other Republican faithless electors, and that they simply haven't outed themselves publicly yet:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309622-gop-elector-not-all-of-us-are-voting-for-trump

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Devout Centrist]

Suprun (the Texas faithless elector) claims there will be other Republican faithless electors, and that they simply haven't outed themselves publicly yet:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309622-gop-elector-not-all-of-us-are-voting-for-trump

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh great, yet more chaos as this year ends. Well maybe we can have an Acting President Biden.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Just ignore her and let history forget about the immoral act. She will be sent to the correct Vancouver in good time.