Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2017, 03:32 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,394
2016 Faithless Electors

Reading the thread on whether Hillary Clinton ran a bad election and a thread on running for vice-president as an independent I looked up how many faithless electors there were in 2016. There were 10 total but what is interesting is that 8* were Clinton electors and only 2 for Trump. Why is this interesting is that in 2016 the campaign for faithless (Hamiltonian) electors was to deny Trump the presidency but it impacted Clinton a lot more.

So what does this say for the 2016 election, Clinton as a candidate vs Trump as a candidate and the Democrat vs. Republican Parties?

*I am counting 3 faithless electors that had their vote invalidated.
Old 08-08-2017, 11:14 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,018
I have no idea myself but I wonder if the losing party is more likely to have faithless electors.

Put another way, had Clinton won would you expect the same results?
Old 08-08-2017, 11:16 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,361
It says that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost.

It was a really dumb idea, and the losers would have a much bigger reason to grasp for this kind of thing.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 08-08-2017 at 11:19 PM.
Old 08-09-2017, 07:50 AM
asahi asahi is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,045
These were basically the Bernie Bro / Jill Stein groupies who voted against Clinton and the Democratic party to spite them and to pour a bottle of rubbing alcohol into Hillary's and the Democratic party's already stinging defeat. I have no doubt that had Hillary Clinton barely won the election with 278 or 272 electoral votes, some of these electors would have given Trump the victory, or come close to it. The fringe left is every bit as bat-shit insane as the fringe right, just for different reasons.

There really ought to be a bipartisan movement to end the faithless elector because one of these days, it's going to have really bad consequences and overturn an election that voters assumed was decided on election night. The originally conceived notion that the faithless elector could serve as a safety mechanism against democratic error was disproved once and for all this past December, when electors knowingly cast their vote for a serial groper who has the mind of a petulant child, hasn't paid income taxes in two decades, and is currently being investigated by a former Bureau chief for financial crimes. It wasn't like we couldn't have known whom we were voting for either.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to:

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to:

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017