# Fed Court: Presidential electors can vote as they wish **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 22, 2019, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046 "2019-08-22T10:58:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/41 "2019-08-22T19:16:31Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Ok, I’m still not getting something. If this Baca guy had gotten to be an elector because he pledged to vote for Clinton, either somebody didn’t do their due diligence or we’ve okayed false representation among the people ultimately responsible for determining the most powerful position in the country. Does this strike anyone else as being way screwy? My understanding was that it went like this. 1. There was no way that Trump electors would switch to Clinton. 2. Even if enough Trump electors switched to a third party so no one got to a majority, it would go to the house, who would presumably just pick a Trump. 3. If it goes to the House, they have to pick from the top three vote getters. 4. Kasich would be a better pres than Trump, and might be palatable enough that if it went to the house, they would pick Kasich over Trump. 5. Baca votes for Kasich, in the hopes that if Trump fails to hit 270, Kasich is the third guy that can be voted on. It wasn’t about not supporting Hilary, it was about stopping Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/42 "2019-08-22T19:25:02Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If you want to get semantic, then, we can say that it’s the ink on the paper or the electrons on the machine what decides elections. There’s no plausible scenario in which a “few cities” on each coast can prevail against a consensus within the rest of the country. The numbers just don’t add up. I’m not even getting into the issue of how this silly electoral system undermines “one person, one vote.” ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/43 "2019-08-22T19:26:34Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > My understanding was that it went like this. > > 1. There was no way that Trump electors would switch to Clinton. > 2. Even if enough Trump electors switched to a third party so no one got to a majority, it would go to the house, who would presumably just pick a Trump. > 3. If it goes to the House, they have to pick from the top three vote getters. > 4. Kasich would be a better pres than Trump, and might be palatable enough that if it went to the house, they would pick Kasich over Trump. > 5. Baca votes for Kasich, in the hopes that if Trump fails to hit 270, Kasich is the third guy that can be voted on. > > It wasn’t about not supporting Hilary, it was about stopping Trump. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > According to interviews with him, he changed his mind after the election in November. He was trying to encourage enough electoral voters, particularly Republicans, not to vote for Trump to deny him the majority. I guess he had to prove his good faith (ha!) to those Republican electoral voters by voting for Kasich. Thanks to both for these answers. That was a pretty convoluted plan. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/44 "2019-08-22T19:32:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities. This is a common [right wing trope.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/). Somehow the logic is that the more land that your voters are spread over, the more your vote ought to count. It’s a bunch of crap, and its proponents can’t even get the facts straight. > [@](#): > > Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. > > In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) > > Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. > > These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. > The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles. > > When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. > > Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country. Christ. Counties don’t vote. Land doesn’t vote. It’s the people who vote, but this current system gives rural votes much disproportionate power than what they should have. ---
**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:** [August 22, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/45 "2019-08-22T19:45:41Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > **[A court ruling just changed how we pick our president](https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAG8tdZ?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare)** > Tweet from WH in 3… 2… 1– This is the case I wrote about in [this thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=813732). Suck it [Wayne Williams.](https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/15/faithless-electors-electoral-college-colorado-secretary-of-state-wayne-williams/) ---
**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:** [August 22, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/46 "2019-08-22T19:54:33Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Maybe I’m completely missing the boat, but I see this ruling (if it stands) as turning the electors into a bunch of wild cards, subject to no one’s control. If they have consciences, that could be a good thing. I doubt it. What it the percentage of faithless electors in states that do not have faithless elector laws? Very very small. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/47 "2019-08-22T19:55:02Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities. If you want to have a system of weighting rural or state votes versus urban voting, that’s one thing. What I’m telling you is having 538 electors completely free to do whatever the fuck they want once they show up to cast their ballots on behalf of millions of voters is a powderkeg and a fuse looking for a struck match. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/48 "2019-08-22T19:55:57Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Thanks to both for these answers. That was a pretty convoluted plan. To quote the Meadow Party slogan for Bill’n’Opus 88: “A Desperate Choice for Desperate Times” ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/49 "2019-08-22T19:58:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I doubt it. What it the percentage of faithless electors in states that do not have faithless elector laws? Very very small. Now that they have a green light to do as they please, do you think Democrats can win any close election? If Democrats win \<300 EVs, you can bet that millions will be given to enough faithless electors to change the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/50 "2019-08-22T21:28:43Z")
Maybe this would encourage the parties to make sure they chose electors who would have something to lose if they were faithless. Off the top of my head one suggestion is that the electors for each party be the most senior members of their state delegation (state senators, or representatives if their aren’t enough senators). ---
**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:** [August 22, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/51 "2019-08-22T21:47:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities. It’s only a problem is you don’t believe in democracy. Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn’t have a system that’s rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win. ---
**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:** [August 22, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/52 "2019-08-22T21:50:29Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Why can’t the Democrats want to rig elections too? I’m just looking at the historical record. Republicans are generally the ones who rig elections. ---
**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:** [August 22, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/53 "2019-08-22T21:53:30Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Maybe I’m completely missing the boat, but I see this ruling (if it stands) as turning the electors into a bunch of wild cards, subject to no one’s control. If they have consciences, that could be a good thing. You could substitute federal judges for electors in that post and it would be equally true in theory. But then we can look at the reality of judicial appointments. ---
**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:** [August 22, 2019, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/54 "2019-08-22T23:46:59Z")
Yes, if someone bribed electors into voting unfaithfully, it would be under federal jurisdiction. But it would _also_ be under state jurisdiction. Both the Feds and the state could pursue charges, even if the other decides not to. Our system is weird that way. Back to the OP, I think our system for electing the President is completely whack, but given the system we have, and the Constitutional language that laid it out, I think that this decision is the only valid reading of how it works. If you don’t like the implications of this decision, the proper response is a Constitutional amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2019, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/55 "2019-08-23T01:44:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s only a problem is you don’t believe in democracy. That’s enough. Right there. Do not personalize nor make assumptions about another poster’s motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2019, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/56 "2019-08-23T02:31:13Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > And replaces it with the problem of our elections being decided by a whote paste in the middle of the country. There is more diversity of interests between the different neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles, then there is between the states of Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota. Sure, but it’s a feature, not a bug, of the EC. > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > No, one person, one vote isn’t “semantics.” “Semantics” is making the case that the majority of voters should find their results disproportionately reduced by an arcane system of squiggles and geography. All states have “one person, one vote” as far as I know. > [@Ravenman](#): > > There’s no plausible scenario in which a “few cities” on each coast can prevail against a consensus within the rest of the country. The numbers just don’t add up. If the US was like Peru, where you have NO idea which party will win or even exist in a year’s time, you’d be right. In the US, something like 80-85% of the votes are already in, no matter the candidate. So, yes, a relatively small number of people can shift elections. > [@](#): > > I’m not even getting into the issue of how this silly electoral system undermines “one person, one vote.” [/QUOTE] The US is a republic, not a democracy. “One man, one vote” still exists, by the way, with the EC. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > This is a common [right wing trope.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/). Since i haven’t made such a claim, I don’t feel the need to say anything about it. > [@](#): > > Somehow the logic is that the more land that your voters are spread over, the more your vote ought to count. It’s a bunch of crap, and its proponents can’t even get the facts straight. Yup, it’s a sort of electoral affirmative action, it’s a feature, not a bug. > [@](#): > > Christ. Counties don’t vote. Land doesn’t vote. It’s the people who vote, but this current system gives rural votes much disproportionate power than what they should have. The expression “cities vote” has a clear meaning that is clearly understood. You just want to obfuscate. > [@asahi](#): > > If you want to have a system of weighting rural or state votes versus urban voting, that’s one thing. What I’m telling you is having 538 electors completely free to do whatever the fuck they want once they show up to cast their ballots on behalf of millions of voters is a powderkeg and a fuse looking for a struck match. That’s why the selection of such people is of utmost importance and it should be done carefully. However, they can vote as they see fit, that’s how it was designed. The US electoral system is astonishingly strong and it has produced the most stable one. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s only a problem is you don’t believe in democracy. Since the US is a republic and not a democracy, it shouldn’t be a problem. > [@](#): > > Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn’t have a system that’s rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win. See previous answer. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m just looking at the historical record. Republicans are generally the ones who rig elections. Cite? ---
**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:** [August 23, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/57 "2019-08-23T03:10:51Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The US is a republic, not a democracy. I didn’t think anybody actually said this in real life. Mostly because it’s absolutely not true. The U.S. doesn’t meet the definition of classical democracies. So what? Words change their meaning and accrue new ones all the time. The U.S. begat a new definition of democracy. It is now the dictionary definition of what a democracy is. When you need to point at something called a democracy the U.S. is what you point at. Can one also call it a republic? Sure. Totally accurately, too, given the modern definition of a republic. Both, not one or the other. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2019, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/58 "2019-08-23T04:24:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s only a problem is you don’t believe in democracy. > > Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn’t have a system that’s rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win. We should change voting in the United Nations, too. States should have votes based on their population; the one vote per country setup is ludicrous! ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/59 "2019-08-23T04:46:49Z")
This ruling is unfortunate and I hope it is overturned. These laws are the least-problematic solution, within the confines of the constitution as currently written, to what could one day cause an actual constitutional crisis (not the kind cable news declares every 48 hours, the actual kind with tanks). We’re not immune to that kind of thing, as a country, and we should be mindful of keeping out of situations where it’s very difficult to get out. The vote of a faithless elector is nothing short of an attempt at a coup d’etat, and the legitimate responses to that kind of thing can be **much** worse than some party activist being kicked out of a ceremonial office; I wish the judges hadn’t decided we would have to g eveno farther down that road to solve this problem in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2019, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/60 "2019-08-23T05:05:14Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Ok, I’m still not getting something. If this Baca guy had gotten to be an elector because he pledged to vote for Clinton, either somebody didn’t do their due diligence or we’ve okayed false representation among the people ultimately responsible for determining the most powerful position in the country. Does this strike anyone else as being way screwy? It is screwy, and unfortunately I haven’t heard much about states and parties locking this process down after the warning they got in 2016. The Washington Democratic Party did change its rules to give the party officials more control over the selection process (it had four faithless electors) but that’s the only change I’ve heard of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046.md?page=4)