# Faithless elector turns election topsy turvey **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438 "2004-11-01T23:23:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/1 "2004-11-01T23:23:41Z")
It’s December. The nation is still reeling from the incredibly close election, where candidate A won 270 votes and candidate B won 268. But the recounts have been recounted, the lawsuits heard, and that’s the final count, even though candidate B won the popular vote. Then comes the normally non-newsworthy event in which all the electors cast their ballots. One elector has switched, saying he cannot, in good conscience, vote for candidate A, even though A won his state, because B won the popular vote. This particular elector’s state has no laws concerning an elector’s duty to vote. Is this a triumph of the Founding Father’s wisdom – that ultimately, a man’s conscience can hold sway and turn the tables of an unjust result? What should be done in this case? And does it make a difference if A also won the popular vote, but the elector just thinks A’s a jerk? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/2 "2004-11-01T23:30:26Z")
Richie Robb, mayor of South Charleston, West Virginia, has been chosen as one of five Republican electors for WV and has declared he might not vote for Bush. Apparently there’s no legal way to make him. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/3 "2004-11-01T23:32:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is this a triumph of the Founding Father’s wisdom – that ultimately, a man’s conscience can hold sway and turn the tables of an unjust result? What should be done in this case? But since states can also require electors to vote per the actual election results, I see this as a bit of a false dichotomy. You didn’t state the above explicitly as a dichotomy, but I think you know what I mean. As for what should be done, that state should clearly enact a law which disallows faithless electors. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/4 "2004-11-01T23:34:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s December. The nation is still reeling from the incredibly close election, where candidate A won 270 votes and candidate B won 268. But the recounts have been recounted, the lawsuits heard, and that’s the final count, even though candidate B won the popular vote. > > Then comes the normally non-newsworthy event in which all the electors cast their ballots. One elector has switched, saying he cannot, in good conscience, vote for candidate A, even though A won his state, because B won the popular vote. This particular elector’s state has no laws concerning an elector’s duty to vote. > > Is this a triumph of the Founding Father’s wisdom – that ultimately, a man’s conscience can hold sway and turn the tables of an unjust result? What should be done in this case? > > And does it make a difference if A also won the popular vote, but the elector just thinks A’s a jerk? In this specific scenario, the EV total is 269-269. That would toss the matter into the House, and unquestionably they would select Bush because each state gets 1 vote. Thus, this would only work if there was one faithless Kerry elector, and Kerry would have had 270 votes had the elector not been faithless. However, more than 1 faithless elector could indeed switch who the winner was. Also, I can imagine faithless electors happening if they couldn’t vote for their pledged candidate because that candidate in their opinion won through election fraud. And, any state laws about the duty of electors likely wouldn’t pass US Constitutional muster. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/5 "2004-11-01T23:52:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But since states can also require electors to vote per the actual election results, I see this as a bit of a false dichotomy. Are you sure? From [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1:](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1:) > [@](#): > > Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2 > > The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: > > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. > > (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XII.) > > The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. > > \ > > Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College > > The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; > > The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; > > The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. > > The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two- thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Nothing in this text authorizes any state to require any elector to vote in a manner dictated by the state’s voters or the state’s legislature. The electors are independent constitutional officers. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_Electoral\_College:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College:) > [@](#): > > Faithless electors > On numerous occasions, presidential electors have cast their vote in a different manner than that prescribed by the popular election results for the state or district they represent. These have included: > > 2000 election: D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes, protesting what she described as the federal district’s “colonial status.” > > 1988 election: West Virginia elector Margaret Leach, pledged for Democrats Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen, instead of casting her votes for the candidates in their positions on the national ticket, cast her presidential vote for Bentsen and her vice-presidential vote for Dukakis. > > 1976 election: Washington state elector Mike Padden, pledged for Republican Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, cast his presidential electoral vote for Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Ford for the Republican nomination. He cast his vice-presidential vote, as pledged, for Dole. > > 1972 election: Virginia elector Roger MacBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his electoral votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora Nathan. MacBride’s vote for Nathan was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history. > > 1968 election: North Carolina elector Lloyd W. Bailey, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his votes for American Independent Party candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay > > 1960 election: Oklahoma elector Henry D. Irwin, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, cast his presidential electoral vote for independent candidate Harry Flood Byrd (also supported by 15 “unpledged” Democratic delegates). Unlike other delegates who voted for Byrd for president, Irwin cast his vice-presidential electoral vote for Barry Goldwater. > > 1956 election: Alabama elector W. F. Turner, pledged for Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver, cast his votes for Walter Burgwyn Jones and Herman Talmadge. > > 1948 election: Tennessee elector Preston Parks, pledged for Democrats Harry Truman and Alben Barkley, cast his votes for States’ Rights Democratic Party candidates Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright. > > In most case, the faithless electors were pledged to vote for candidates who lost the electoral college vote (exceptions being the 1972 and 1968 elections). In none of the case listed above did the faithless electors play a critical role in deciding the election; if an election was decided by a faithless elector, many consider it probable that the electoral college would be abolished. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/6 "2004-11-01T23:56:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Are you sure? From [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1:](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1:) > > Nothing in this text authorizes any state to require any elector to vote in a manner dictated by the state’s voters or the state’s legislature. The electors are independent constitutional officers. > > From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_Electoral\_College:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College:) Some states do have such laws, although you are right in the sense that it’s unclear how enforceable they are. But there are a lot of nuts out there. If I were such an elector, I’d be concerned about the my safety and the safety of my family… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/7 "2004-11-02T02:03:57Z")
Do we cheer this elector for sticking with his conscience, or condemn him for not following his pledge? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/8 "2004-11-02T02:09:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do we cheer this elector for sticking with his conscience, or condemn him for not following his pledge? The answer to that will, of course, break down along partisan lines, more than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/9 "2004-11-02T02:21:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do we cheer this elector for sticking with his conscience, or condemn him for not following his pledge? As an outside observer, I would have to say that should your scenario come to pass, you folks have a monumental cock-up on your hands. That such a scenario is even possible reveals that the American electoral system is poorly structured. Perhaps the structure made sense when it was enacted (and arguably, it did), but it’s long past time to revise it, as it’s currently possible to fall into an acute constitutional crisis over an election result - never a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/10 "2004-11-02T02:24:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The answer to that will, of course, break down along partisan lines, more than anything else. Really? I can answer it now, without knowing which way the faithless elector is going and without knowing whose faith he’s breaking with. He’s wrong. He’s wrong to break faith. It’s dishonorable and underhanded. Are you really saying it’s wrong only if he breaks in a way you don’t like? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/11 "2004-11-02T02:37:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do we cheer this elector for sticking with his conscience, or condemn him for not following his pledge? Until we abolish the electoral college, theoretically the electoral college is an independent body. At least the Founding Fathers thought of it that way. > [@Alexander Hamilton](#): > > All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, _and vote for some fit person as President._ I’m going with the conscience angle here. ---
**Author:** ![Fiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/12 "2004-11-02T02:39:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Richie Robb, mayor of South Charleston, West Virginia, has been chosen as one of five Republican electors for WV and has declared he might not vote for Bush. Apparently there’s no legal way to make him. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821) What I find odd about this story is that apparently West Virginia (or the West Virginia Republican Party?), knowing this about Robb BEFORE the election, can’t replace him as a potential elector. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/13 "2004-11-02T02:40:52Z")
Also: > [@](#): > > It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations Ibid. I gather that the original conception of the college was to be made up of learned men who would make up their own minds after carefully considering all the information available to them. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/14 "2004-11-02T02:41:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then comes the normally non-newsworthy event in which all the electors cast their ballots. One elector has switched, saying he cannot, in good conscience, vote for candidate A, even though A won his state, because B won the popular vote. This particular elector’s state has no laws concerning an elector’s duty to vote. The rules of the electoral college make it possible for a candidate to win without the popular vote, therefore any electors should be aware that the candidate who wins their state may not have won the popular vote, therefore any electors who accept the job of elector are doing so with the full knowledge that they may have to vote despite a discrepancy in the electoral versus popular votes. In other words, the person who is offered the job of elector had damned well better consult his or her conscience about how he or she is going to vote well before accepting the job, and bowing out before the question comes up–before the election. To do otherwise stinks like catbreath. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/15 "2004-11-02T03:05:30Z")
**Bricker** , I start from a different place than you do. I see the law as a means to an end–but there are other, valid means to the same desireable ends. This election is fucked. There is so much distrust of the system, well-founded distrust IMO, that the outcome of it is not likely to achieve the desirable ends of uniting the nation. And the electoral college is an outdated, outmoded institution: the country as a whole hates it, but none of us are sure how to get rid of it. Most of the country thinks that elections are popular, not electoral. And most of the country believes that’s how it should be. So my answer to your question is, “it depends.” I believe that the folks in the electoral college have a moral obligation to enact the popular will. Much as I hate to say it, if Kerry legitimately loses the popular vote and wins the electoral college by a single vote, I would fully support the decision of a member of the EC to cast her vote for Bush, and in so doing enact the will of the people. I would hope that, in thus falling on her sword, she’d create the outrage necessary to do away with the EC. But even if she didn’t have that effect, I would support her decision. However, if the popular vote goes to Kerry and one member of the electoral college changes her vote to Bush, I will excoriate her as a vile, repulsive person who has betrayed the country on a fundamental level. The greater good, in this case, is the enactment of the will of the majority. That’s what I want to see. Her legality, her adherence to tradition, are unimportant to me in this case. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/16 "2004-11-02T03:33:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? I can answer it now, without knowing which way the faithless elector is going and without knowing whose faith he’s breaking with. > > He’s wrong. He’s wrong to break faith. It’s dishonorable and underhanded. > > Are you really saying it’s wrong only if he breaks in a way you don’t like? How is it that you are always unbelievably legalistic when it helps your case, that you are almost defined by your supposed “strict and narrow” adherance to the constitution (again, when it helps your case), but then you rely on things like “dishonor” when the law does not say what you want it to say? Not that I disagree with you. I think it is absurd that an elector has any choice in the matter at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/17 "2004-11-02T03:34:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > The rules of the electoral college make it possible for a candidate to win without the popular vote, therefore any electors should be aware that the candidate who wins their state may not have won the popular vote, therefore any electors who accept the job of elector are doing so with the full knowledge that they may have to vote despite a discrepancy in the electoral versus popular votes. But that’s the poing of this thread, **jsgoddess.** Electors don’t **have** to vote in any particular way, and any state law that says otherwise is probably unconstitutional and certainly unenforceable. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/18 "2004-11-02T04:00:00Z")
The electoral college deadlocks at 269-269. One brave, forward-looking elector -Republican or Democrat- votes his conscience and defects to John McCain, making it 269-268-1. Still, nobody has a majority. The election is tossed to the House, who according to the Constitution must choose from the top **three** candidates… Politicking ensues. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/19 "2004-11-02T04:06:58Z")
…then again, our iconoclastic elector could also choose Tom DeLay. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438/20 "2004-11-02T04:27:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But that’s the poing of this thread, **jsgoddess.** Electors don’t **have** to vote in any particular way, and any state law that says otherwise is probably unconstitutional and certainly unenforceable. The notion of an elector being faithful to a single candidate wasn’t what the Founding Fathers assumed. They were thinking along the idea of selecting the best man to be president. The idea of political parties and popular elections for President weren’t what they were expecting. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faithless-elector-turns-election-topsy-turvey/272438.md?page=2)