# Any chance the electors could have elected Hillary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 10, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386 "2016-11-10T18:38:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/21 "2016-11-11T02:10:01Z")
> [@CC](#): > > Ok,\*\* Map\*\*, but it’s not like this year’s election isn’t unprecedented. A television celebrity/businessman of questionable ethics and no legal education or elective experience is pretty rare in the modern era. It may be the stuff of novels, but that doesn’t make it impossible. Improbable? Yes. People just here on the Dope think of millions of things that are not literally physically impossible and discuss them in threads. They never happen. Never. Not once. So why exactly should we care about yours? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/22 "2016-11-11T02:21:19Z")
> [@Tommy\_Bahama](#): > > The beauty of the electoral college. They would simply vote for a different candidate for president (in this case presumably Pence), and the party would give guidance on who to vote for VP. > > If a candidate were to die after electoral votes were cast or counted that may open up a different can, I would think the courts or congress (most likely both) would have get involved as the electoral vote is constitutionally mandated and dates are determined by law. The most reasonable scenario in my opinion would be to allow another electoral vote to be held and accepted by congress. Actually, they could just vote for Pence for VP. The VP-elect is always sworn in before the President-elect. He would then succeed to the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/23 "2016-11-11T02:35:02Z")
> [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > The House of Representatives has almost nothing to do with the election of the President. The President of the Senate (currently Joe Biden) opens the ballots from the electors and does the counting in the presence of Congress. There is no certification of the results by congress, so I suppose there’s the possibility of Biden just lying about the results, but the votes themselves are public record so it wouldn’t stand up to much scrutiny. It’s in Article II, Section 1. Technically, it is a certification as one Representative and one Senator can object to votes and then each House has to decide to accept or reject it by majority vote. Failure to reject a vote by not objecting or rejecting the objection in effects certifies the vote. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/24 "2016-11-11T02:51:16Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > People just here on the Dope think of millions of things that are not literally physically impossible and discuss them in threads. They never happen. Never. Not once. So why exactly should we care about yours? 1. With all due respect, and excuse my personally addressing you, but I’m not asking you to care about anything. I raised the issue because it is in a realm that I wish to know more about, hence this forum. If it’s better elsewhere, mods will move it. 2. Again, excuse my personally addressing you, but you do sound a bit like those experts who knew that there was no way that a heavier-than-air craft could fly. Couldn’t happen. Never. Not once. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/25 "2016-11-11T03:19:58Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > What happens if he dies? > [@Tommy\_Bahama](#): > > …If a candidate were to die after electoral votes were cast or counted that may open up a different can, I would think the courts or congress (most likely both) would have get involved as the electoral vote is constitutionally mandated and dates are determined by law. The most reasonable scenario in my opinion would be to allow another electoral vote to be held and accepted by congress. According to section 3 of the [20th](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Amendment if the President-elect dies after the electoral votes have been cast the Vice-President-elect becomes President on Inauguration Day. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/26 "2016-11-11T03:54:00Z")
> [@CC](#): > > 1. With all due respect, and excuse my personally addressing you, but I’m not asking you to care about anything. I raised the issue because it is in a realm that I wish to know more about, hence this forum. If it’s better elsewhere, mods will move it. > 2. Again, excuse my personally addressing you, but you do sound a bit like those experts who knew that there was no way that a heavier-than-air craft could fly. Couldn’t happen. Never. Not once. Well, the “Ok, Map,” looked to be pretty good justification for me to respond personally. Kinda weird that you thought otherwise. You asked a factual question in your OP. That got answered. If you want to discuss hypotheticals GQ isn’t the best place. I’ll ask a mod to move this. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/27 "2016-11-11T04:35:17Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > People just here on the Dope think of millions of things that are not literally physically impossible and discuss them in threads. They never happen. Never. Not once. So why exactly should we care about yours? There’s a petition online right now that already has millions of signatures asking the electors to do exactly this. I haven’t checked the numbers of active members at the SDMB recently but it would appear that at least a few more than the SDMB membership are contemplating this. Factually, yes the electors can go faithless. In the majority of states that bind electors (24 I think) the penalty would be a fine. A few try to block the ability to cast the faithless vote but that hasn’t been challenged as far as I know and might not be constitutional. Whether or not it would ever happen is pure speculation. Two nights ago something happened that literally billions of people around the world solidly believed would never happen. Never. Not once. I agree with CC that in such an already unlikely scenario it doesn’t seem as outlandish to discuss ideas about other unlikely scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/28 "2016-11-11T05:05:32Z")
I would not want electors who are committed to Trump to change their vote to Clinton unless there was overwhelming evidence he had committed massive voter fraud and stolen the election. I’d rather have a bad President who was legally elected than a good President who wasn’t. The principles of democracy and the rule of law are more important than any one Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/29 "2016-11-11T05:31:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I would not want electors who are committed to Trump to change their vote to Clinton unless there was overwhelming evidence he had committed massive voter fraud and stolen the election. I’d rather have a bad President who was legally elected than a good President who wasn’t. The principles of democracy and the rule of law are more important than any one Presidency. As I understand it (and admittedly I really don’t very well) the electoral college system was devised specifically to allow for electors to have the right to cast against their ‘orders’. Otherwise a straight popular vote would be a lot simpler to do. Whenever someone wins with the lower popular vote people start talking about electors having the right to correct that unintuitive result. As I understand it the argument isn’t about voter fraud. It’s about the electoral college system having rare but possible cases when someone loses the election with the higher popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/30 "2016-11-11T05:40:36Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Whether or not it would ever happen is pure speculation. Two nights ago something happened that literally billions of people around the world solidly believed would never happen. Never. Not once. I agree with CC that in such an already unlikely scenario it doesn’t seem as outlandish to discuss ideas about other unlikely scenarios. I think the error in your argument here is that you think trump winning was an unlikely scenario. This thinking comes from being misinformed. Your sources of information failed you. Equating the misinformed perception of an unlikely scenario (trump winning) with an actual unlikely scenario (electoral college not voting in trump), is difficult for me to understand. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/31 "2016-11-11T05:41:27Z")
> [@Sigene](#): > > I think the error in your argument here is that you think trump winning was an unlikely scenario. This thinking comes from being misinformed. Your sources of information failed you. Equating the misinformed perception of an unlikely scenario (trump winning) with an actual unlikely scenario (electoral college not voting in trump), is difficult for me to understand. Winning with the smaller popular vote is an unlikely scenario. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/32 "2016-11-11T05:41:46Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > As I understand it (and admittedly I really don’t very well) the electoral college system was devised specifically to allow for electors to have the right to cast against their ‘orders’. Otherwise a straight popular vote would be a lot simpler to do. The Electoral College system was designed before there was ever a popular vote for President. The idea of chusing Electors by popular vote came later. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/33 "2016-11-11T05:59:42Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > The Electoral College system was designed before there was ever a popular vote for President. The idea of chusing Electors by popular vote came later. Clearly I still don’t understand the system’s application in modern times, as noted. But in that case the changes in the 12th amendment, or whatever series of events led to the system as it is used today, allows for electors to do what the OP is asking about. This is only the fifth time a president was elected without the popular vote and three of those five were in the 1800’s. Both times it’s happened in my lifetime at least, the popular narrative has been that the EC should follow the will of the people over party loyalty and the system allows for them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/34 "2016-11-11T06:34:56Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > As I understand it (and admittedly I really don’t very well) the electoral college system was devised specifically to allow for electors to have the right to cast against their ‘orders’. Otherwise a straight popular vote would be a lot simpler to do. > > Whenever someone wins with the lower popular vote people start talking about electors having the right to correct that unintuitive result. As I understand it the argument isn’t about voter fraud. It’s about the electoral college system having rare but possible cases when someone loses the election with the higher popular vote. But by now we’ve clearly established a system of how electors are supposed to cast their votes. Nobody on Election Day was thinking about the possibility of electors choosing to vote as they wished. The rules are clear; you win the state, you get that state’s electoral votes (with Maine and Nebraska being slightly different). It would be very wrong to change the rules after the election. If you want to change the system, start working now on changing it for 2020. But have the new rules in place before people vote so they know what they’re voting for. ---
**Author:** ![bardos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bardos/32/1069_2.png) [@bardos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bardos)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/35 "2016-11-11T13:33:53Z")
At the time that the results of the electoral college vote are announced to a joint session of congress, if one representative together with one senator challenge the legality of the election itself, then… not sure what happens… but something does happen. Someone please correct me if I’m off-base here. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/36 "2016-11-11T14:05:50Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Winning with the smaller popular vote is an unlikely scenario. No it isn’t. Its part of the design to have something like this a very possible scenario…to characterize THAT as unlikely is also not correct…its happened before. ---
**Author:** ![Pixel\_Dent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Pixel\_Dent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pixel_Dent)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/37 "2016-11-11T14:08:16Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > This is only the fifth time a president was elected without the popular vote To be clear, this is just the 5th time a president was elected without a plurality of the popular vote. There were another dozen times when the president was elected with a plurality but not a majority of the vote. So in almost a third of our presidential elections no candidate has received a majority of the vote. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/38 "2016-11-11T14:09:53Z")
> [@bardos](#): > > At the time that the results of the electoral college vote are announced to a joint session of congress, if one representative together with one senator challenge the legality of the election itself, then… not sure what happens… but something does happen. Someone please correct me if I’m off-base here. [3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15) > [@](#): > > …Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. ---
**Author:** ![Tread](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Tread](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tread)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/39 "2016-11-11T14:25:23Z")
n/m ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/40 "2016-11-11T14:52:24Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > What happens if he dies? In 1872 Horace Greeley, the Democratic nominee, died after the popular vote but before the electoral college. He lost the election by a large amount so the Democratic electors voted for four different men. Greeley received three votes but they were disallowed. > **[1872 United States presidential election](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1872)** > > Ulysses S. Grant > Republican > Ulysses S. Grant > Republican > The 1872 United States presidential election was the 22nd quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 5, 1872. Despite a split in the Republican Party, incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant defeated Democratic-endorsed Liberal Republican nominee Horace Greeley. There are various theories as to why the constitution went for such as system. The one I like is they figured once Washington was done being President, the country would divide into regions or most likely states. James McPherson in his Civil War book “Battle Cry of Freedom” notes in Lincoln’s first inaugural address he talks about “the Union” or “the United States are” more than 'the nation" or “the United States is”. The Founding Fathers felt that in most elections each state would have a “favorite son” (which existed in conventions until about 50 years ago when primaries became more prevalent). To prevent the idea of large populated states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia) from dominated they came up with the Electoral College. ``` The college gets real weird when it gets into the House of Representatives which it hasn't happened since 1824. The top three vote getters in electoral votes are the candidates (1824 had four). The representatives vote but not by a majority/plurality vote). They vote as a state and each state gets a vote. So essentially the smaller states ``` are electing the best candidate for their interests. Of course it didn’t go according to plan but that happens. A week ago a Democratic congressman was asked what his party would do if Trump won. He replied that we don’t think that will happen. Gee, General Custer, where did all those Indians come from? Could you change it? Sure, constitutional amendment which takes two thirds of the House and Senate plus three fourths of the states. Will it happen? Right now, if you are a Republican you may not want it because you might assume current trends will continue. Back in 2000 Bob Dole was asked about the college. He replied in this 1970s he tried to get an amendment but the opposition came from voters that vote Democrat in large numbers: Blacks and Jews. Those groups tend to be concentrated in large cities and states and felt they have more impact on elections that way. ``` There was also a certain tendency by the Founding Fathers to not completely trust democracy, based on the various mob actions that happened in ancient Greece and Rome. ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386.md?page=3)