2016 electoral college voting **live commentary thread**

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Sanders got a vote! Awesome!

[RI]

Apparently the disqualified MN elector wanted to cast a Sanders/Gabbard vote.

[jimrtex]

FAITHLESS ELECTOR IN MINNESOTA, PREVENTED BY MINNESOTA LAW.

Was he trying to vote for John Ewards again?

Does anyone know what happened in 2004 and who did he vote for VP?

In 2004, voting in Minnesota was by secret ballot. One elector apparently got confused and marked both ballots for Edwards.

Since then, Minnesota has enacted the model faithless elector act which is quite elaborate.

(1) Electors must pledge to vote for their party's presidential candidate;
(2) The Certificate of Ascertainment from the governor notes that vacancies might occur prior to the end of the meeting;
(3) A vote is not considered "cast" until the Secretary of State examines it and determines that the vote is consistent with the pledge.
(4) If an elector refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge, his position is deemed vacant.
(5) Vacancies are filled by an elaborate procedure:
    (a) Each elector has an alternate (Minnesota parties name 10 electors and 10 alternates).
    (b) If the alternate is not available, then one is chosen by lot from among the other alternates.
    (c) If no alternates are available, then other electors choose someone who is available, and willing
          to take the pledge and then vote.
    (c.i) If it is a tie vote, the replacement is chosen by lot.
    (d) If there are no electors, the SOS can appoint 1, who then begins the process of filling the vacancies.

[Nym90]

FAITHLESS ELECTOR IN MINNESOTA, PREVENTED BY MINNESOTA LAW.

Was he trying to vote for John Ewards again?

Does anyone know what happened in 2004 and who did he vote for VP?

In 2004, voting in Minnesota was by secret ballot. One elector apparently got confused and marked both ballots for Edwards.

Since then, Minnesota has enacted the model faithless elector act which is quite elaborate.

(1) Electors must pledge to vote for their party's presidential candidate;
(2) The Certificate of Ascertainment from the governor notes that vacancies might occur prior to the end of the meeting;
(3) A vote is not considered "cast" until the Secretary of State examines it and determines that the vote is consistent with the pledge.
(4) If an elector refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge, his position is deemed vacant.
(5) Vacancies are filled by an elaborate procedure:
    (a) Each elector has an alternate (Minnesota parties name 10 electors and 10 alternates).
    (b) If the alternate is not available, then one is chosen by lot from among the other alternates.
    (c) If no alternates are available, then other electors choose someone who is available, and willing
          to take the pledge and then vote.
    (c.i) If it is a tie vote, the replacement is chosen by lot.
    (d) If there are no electors, the SOS can appoint 1, who then begins the process of filling the vacancies.

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

[justfollowingtheelections]

FAITHLESS ELECTOR IN MINNESOTA, PREVENTED BY MINNESOTA LAW.

Was he trying to vote for John Ewards again?

Does anyone know what happened in 2004 and who did he vote for VP?

In 2004, voting in Minnesota was by secret ballot. One elector apparently got confused and marked both ballots for Edwards.

Since then, Minnesota has enacted the model faithless elector act which is quite elaborate.

(1) Electors must pledge to vote for their party's presidential candidate;
(2) The Certificate of Ascertainment from the governor notes that vacancies might occur prior to the end of the meeting;
(3) A vote is not considered "cast" until the Secretary of State examines it and determines that the vote is consistent with the pledge.
(4) If an elector refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge, his position is deemed vacant.
(5) Vacancies are filled by an elaborate procedure:
    (a) Each elector has an alternate (Minnesota parties name 10 electors and 10 alternates).
    (b) If the alternate is not available, then one is chosen by lot from among the other alternates.
    (c) If no alternates are available, then other electors choose someone who is available, and willing
          to take the pledge and then vote.
    (c.i) If it is a tie vote, the replacement is chosen by lot.
    (d) If there are no electors, the SOS can appoint 1, who then begins the process of filling the vacancies.

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

The more we learn about the electoral college, the more stupid it sounds.

[The Other Castro]

Mike Memoli ‏@mikememoli  24m24 minutes ago
Hawaii election official tells me there's no statute requiring electors to follow statewide vote. Bernie's vote stands

[emailking]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So have we set an all-time record for faithless electors for president?  We've had many more faithless VP electors before, but for the presidential ballot, I think 7 faithless electors is an all-time record.

Yes, for Presidential,  the 7 for 2016 beats the record of  6 in 1808.

For VP, the 6 for 2016 loses to 27 in 1896, 23 in 1836, 32 in 1832, 7 in 1828. And also 18 or 19 in 1796, but that was pre 12th amendment.

Hillary's 5 faithless electors are the 2nd most ever faithless electors for a Presidential candidate. The irony is that the record was 6 Madison electors who voted for a Clinton from New York instead. So I guess Clintons from New York are still up 1 in the faithless elector department.

[jimrtex]

Six faithless electors so far. The first time we've got more than one since 1960, I believe (Kennedy won Alabama, but six of them voted Byrd. Mississippi was actually carried by an unpledged slot).

All the Byrd votes were from unpledged electors - AL wasn't WTA. Same reason 1860 had no faithless electors - NJ wasn't WTA.

Hm, didn't know that. Still it's funny since Kennedy won the state's PV with 56.39% (Dave doesn't list any unpledged voters in Alabama for 1960.)

Where they being allocated via CDs? For since when?

The actual candidates for elector were listed on the GE ballot instead of the candidates, and people could vote however they wanted. So a split delegation served in the EC.

While this is true, the 11 Democratic electors were chosen in a primary, with 6 Anti-Kennedy and 5 Kennedy electors. During the general election campaign, the Anti-Kennedy electors were active.

Nonetheless most voters simply voted for all 11 Democrats. The top Anti-Kennedy elector received 324,000 votes, the top Kennedy elector 318,000. It is convention when reporting popular vote totals when voters are voting for individual electors to report the votes for the top candidate.

However, that convention was developed for cases where there were two competing slates (e.g. California in 1912).

How the popular votes are attributed, determines whether JFK or Richard Nixon won the so-called national popular vote.

[The Other Castro]

Well, this is an interesting map:

[jimrtex]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

[The Other Castro]

People that got fewer electoral votes than Faith Spotted Eagle:
-Jeb Bush
-Ted Cruz
-Marco Rubio
-Chris Christie
-Rand Paul
-Scott Walker
-Martin O'Malley
-Jill Stein
-Gary Johnson
-Evan McMullin

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Well, this is an interesting map:

That almost makes it look like Maine had a faithless elector vote for Trump.

[emailking]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

You're describing what we've de facto morphed the system into, not the way in which it was designed. It wasn't intended to just be a rubber stamp like it is now. Most states didn't even have a popular vote initially.

[Suburbia]

It's over, Trump is the President-elect. Kasich and Powell got votes from moderate Republicans who still are worried about the future of the party.

[emailking]

Powell's votes came from Democrats.

[justfollowingtheelections]

It's over, Trump is the President-elect. Kasich and Powell got votes from moderate Republicans who still are worried about the future of the party.

Powell's votes came from Democratic electors who wanted to give Republican electors in other states the incentive to vote for someone other than Trump.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The faithless elector that voted for Spotted Eagle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

So I assume this means that Powell got the second most electoral votes of any African-American in history (after Obama)?

[/]

This is the first presidential election in the history of the United States in which as many females received electoral votes as males.

[jimrtex]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

You're describing what we've de facto morphed the system into, not the way in which it was designed. It wasn't intended to just be a rubber stamp like it is now. Most states didn't even have a popular vote initially.

By 1796 (third election) electors were already being elected by parties. By 1800, 137 of 138 electors voted for either Jefferson and Burr; or Adams and Pinckney.

This resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, which went to the House of Representatives where the lame duck Federalists tried to scheme to elect Burr as President. It was realized that the initial system was not working and the 12th Amendment was added. It recognized that electors were being chosen based on parties.

It is false that most states did not have a popular vote initially. In the first election 6 of the 10 states chose their electors by popular vote, including the Big 3 most associated with the Revolution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 64% of the Washington electors were popularly elected.

[jimrtex]

People that got fewer electoral votes than Faith Spotted Eagle:
-Jeb Bush
-Ted Cruz
-Marco Rubio
-Chris Christie
-Rand Paul
-Scott Walker
-Martin O'Malley
-Jill Stein
-Gary Johnson
-Evan McMullin

People who got more electoral votes than when they actually ran for President:
Ron Paul
Winona LaDuke

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is the first presidential election in the history of the United States in which as many females received electoral votes as males.

President was 3-3 split on the genders, but Vice President was 5-2 in favor of women.

This may have been the first time women or non Christians got electoral votes for President.

[/]

This is the first presidential election in the history of the United States in which as many females received electoral votes as males.

President was 3-3 split on the genders, but Vice President was 5-2 in favor of women.

This may have been the first time women or non Christians got electoral votes for President.

No, President was 5-2 in favor of men. It balances out with the 5-2 female majority for VP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is the first presidential election in the history of the United States in which as many females received electoral votes as males.

President was 3-3 split on the genders, but Vice President was 5-2 in favor of women.

This may have been the first time women or non Christians got electoral votes for President.

No, President was 5-2 in favor of men. It balances out with the 5-2 female majority for VP.

Right, I made a mistake there.

I wonder if there will ever be 5 women to receive an electoral vote for VP in the same election again?