# 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:** 3
**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, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/41 "2016-11-11T15:24:23Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > [3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15) can this be translated into English? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/42 "2016-11-11T18:42:16Z")
> [@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. But what we’re discussing, some of the electors changing their votes and giving the presidency to Hillary, wouldn’t be fraud and it would be legal, all according to the rule of law. ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/43 "2016-11-11T19:34:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. There have been faithless electors in previous elections and it is always possible in any election. It wouldn’t require changing the system. I’m not taking a position about whether the system is right or wrong since that isn’t GQ territory, but just that the system, as it is right now, allows for this. Factually it is possible and it is an idea that has a lot more traction than just some guy in a thread on the SDMB which was the comment I replied to. It is also fair to say without any political rhetoric or controversy, that this most recent election was unusual to say the least and in this unusual context discussion of further unusual developments isn’t as outlandish as implied. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/44 "2016-11-11T20:01:14Z")
According to Lawrence O’Donnell, A. Hamilton, writing in Federalist #6, expressed an interest in electors simply voting for the person they discerned to be the best. He did not envision them “pledged” to a party and voting lockstep. Originally, it was possible, in fact, desirable, for a state’s, say, 12 electors to vote 4 for one candidate, 6 to another, and 2 to another. He didn’t trust the general public to make those decisions, but did count on the electors to be astute enough to make wise choices. This current business where the electors are more or less locked into party choices is not what was originally intended. ---
**Author:** ![hermann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b487fb/32.png) [@hermann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hermann)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/45 "2016-11-11T20:04:00Z")
What I can see happening is one or more Hillary electors going for Bernie…the mind reals. ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/46 "2016-11-11T21:02:11Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > But what we’re discussing, some of the electors changing their votes and giving the presidency to Hillary, wouldn’t be fraud and it would be legal, all according to the rule of law. When you have to argue that what you’re trying to do isn’t technically illegal, that means it’s wrong. Suppose Clinton had won the election and the electors decided to ignore the outcome of the election and choose Trump as President; would you still be arguing that it’s okay because it’s legal? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/47 "2016-11-11T21:06:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **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. Given all of the information that was available, it was correct to say that Trump winning was unlikely. Likewise, given all of the information that is now available, it’s also correct to say that the election probably won’t be swayed by faithless electors. Now, it’s true that the information turned out to be incorrect or incomplete, and so Trump’s victory was more likely than it was thought to be… but the same could also be true of the faithless electors. We don’t know what we don’t know. EDIT: **Little Nemo** , it’s also not technically illegal for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. Why is that any less legitimate than faithless electors? Both the human electors and their votes are part of the system we have, and if we were ever to change that system, it’d probably be to go to a straight popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_Cello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Clark\_Cello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_Cello)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/48 "2016-11-12T00:13:34Z")
> [@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. Of all the improbable scenarios that would result in Trump not being sworn in as president in January, the one that involves 37 electors switching their votes from Trump to Hillary just because they think she is a better choice is one of the very lowest. I say without hyperbole that the scenario that involves a giant meteor hitting the earth on January 19th is more likely to happen. The chance of this happening is so low that we can effectively say it is impossible. ---
**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 12, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/49 "2016-11-12T00:38:18Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Little Nemo** , it’s also not technically illegal for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. Why is that any less legitimate than faithless electors? Both the human electors and their votes are part of the system we have, and if we were ever to change that system, it’d probably be to go to a straight popular vote. Everyone understood how the system worked going into Election Day. They knew you got electoral votes based on states not on the national vote. Holding an election and then deciding you’re going to change the rules afterwards because you don’t like the outcome is wrong. If you do that, there’s no point in holding elections. ---
**Author:** ![Hooleehootoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eada6e/32.png) [@Hooleehootoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hooleehootoo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/50 "2016-11-12T00:54:32Z")
I think I can detect more than academic interest in this topic from several posters. Go to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=810425) one and tell us if you would take the Pledge if you could go back to Nov 7. ---
**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 12, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/51 "2016-11-12T01:06:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Everyone understood how the system worked going into Election Day. They knew you got electoral votes based on states not on the national vote. > > Holding an election and then deciding you’re going to change the rules afterwards because you don’t like the outcome is wrong. If you do that, there’s no point in holding elections. Nobody is talking about changing rules. Under the current rules electors can contradict the state results. They have done so in the past and they will do so in the future. It hasn’t ever swayed the outcome of an election but as a matter of principle, or for any other reason or no reason at all, they already can and do. That is the only factual answer anyone can provide. Degrees of likelihood or whether or not it is right or wrong are matters of opinion. > [@Hooleehootoo](#): > > I think I can detect more than academic interest in this topic from several posters. Go to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=810425) one and tell us if you would take the Pledge if you could go back to Nov 7. As a white male living outside of the US I have a lot less at stake than most in the discussion. But such a pledge is meaningless. Whatever the electors do, all anyone can do is accept it. So pledging to do so seems sort of redundant unless you are another candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/52 "2016-11-12T02:48:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Little Nemo** : > > Everyone understood how the system worked going into Election Day. Including understanding that the electors are humans with free will. ---
**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 12, 2016, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/53 "2016-11-12T04:25:35Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > They have done so in the past and they will do so in the future. It hasn’t ever swayed the outcome of an election but as a matter of principle, or for any other reason or no reason at all, they already can and do. I have no problem with some electors deciding to change their votes in a purely symbolic manner. As you point out, there’s precedent. But I will continue to oppose the idea of the electors taking it upon themselves to change the outcome of the election. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/54 "2016-11-12T05:47:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have no problem with some electors deciding to change their votes in a purely symbolic manner. As you point out, there’s precedent. > > But I will continue to oppose the idea of the electors taking it upon themselves to change the outcome of the election. “…the outcome of the election” is a term that’s ambiguous. To me, the outcome of the election means that Clinton won, because more people voted for her. ---
**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 12, 2016, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/55 "2016-11-12T07:00:03Z")
> [@CC](#): > > To me, the outcome of the election means that Clinton won, because more people voted for her. That’s never been the way presidential elections have worked in America. If you want to change the rules for future elections and make them majority national vote, you’d have my support. We probably should have changed that after 2000. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/56 "2016-11-12T07:17:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s never been the way presidential elections have worked in America. > > If you want to change the rules for future elections and make them majority national vote, you’d have my support. We probably should have changed that after 2000. Or 1888? Or 1876? Or the bizarro 1824? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/57 "2016-11-12T16:05:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s never been the way presidential elections have worked in America. > > If you want to change the rules for future elections and make them majority national vote, you’d have my support. We probably should have changed that after 2000. Not going to happen. It would require a constitutional amendment, with the support of 3/4 of the states. But every state is going to cling to the principle of States Rights, which leaves all components of elections in the hands of the states, who then can do nothing federally except as a collective of states of the union… ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/58 "2016-11-12T17:34:59Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Not going to happen. It would require a constitutional amendment, with the support of 3/4 of the states. But every state is going to cling to the principle of States Rights, which leaves all components of elections in the hands of the states, who then can do nothing federally except as a collective of states of the union… Actually, it would\*\* not\*\* require a constitutional amendment. The apportionment of electors is, according to the constitution, up to the states. There is a growing movement (11 states so far) for the states to modify their methods. The National Popular Vote movement (check the website), if successful, would effectively remove the shortcomings of our current presidential electoral system, and there are many, as we all know. And, as you suggest, since there is a powerful states’ rights sentiment around the country, this would solidify the rights of the states to determine their own methods. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/59 "2016-11-12T17:38:37Z")
It could still happen, through the [Interstate Popular Vote Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact), which takes advantage of the quirks of the Electoral College system itself to effectively do away with the Electoral College. It’s still probably an uphill battle politically speaking (you’d probably need at least a few swingy states to sign on to get enough), but it’d be a heck of a lot easier than passing an amendment. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386/60 "2016-11-12T21:36:26Z")
One other comment, admittedly political: the electoral college was founded in part on the proposition that the general public was lacking in the information that would allow them to choose intelligently and would therefore need someone to make those decisions for them. After looking at the results, I think we are back where we started. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-the-electors-could-have-elected-hillary/771386.md?page=4)