# HRC has her first faithless elector **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 5, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669 "2016-11-05T05:17:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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 5, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/61 "2016-11-05T21:43:37Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I think most (not all) of us agree that the EC overall is more of a bug than a feature in today’s world. We’re gonna need a bigger Sam Wang. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/62 "2016-11-05T22:02:58Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > We’re gonna need a bigger Sam Wang. And a big bottle of Scotch. ---
**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 5, 2016, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/63 "2016-11-05T22:35:03Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I apologize; I was trying to signal that I was incredulous, not that you were a dummy. As I understood your comments, it seemed that you kept asserting it really worked some other way. My bad if I got that backwards. > > So what \*is \*your issue? What’s your idea of the problem and your idea of the solution? > > I think most (not all) of us agree that the EC overall is more of a bug than a feature in today’s world. I think it’s a pretty buggy bit of the system. I don’t think there’s much agreement on what to do instead, nor on how to get there politically. IMO the next 2-plus months are sure not the time to try to formally undermine or change it; stuff’s unstable enough right now as it is. AIUI, there are two phases at which electors are chosen: 1. Prior to election day, the party chooses a slate of electors. 2. On election day, the state chooses one party’s slate of electors. The first phase happens really early, such that some electors may be chosen before they’ve made up their minds for sure whom to vote for. That’s the phase I’m arguing should happen much later. At this point, I’m reasonably convinced that this first step can’t happen **after** election day, so my first proposal is unworkable barring congressional action. It wouldn’t require an amendment as near as I can tell, just a change to federal law. However, it appears to be a state, not federal, decision when the first step needs to be completed. As long as it’s completed prior to the second step, it shouldn’t violate federal law. And since the second step just needs to be completed before midnight on election day, presumably the campaign could (given a state law allowing it) nominate its slate a few minutes before midnight. This wouldn’t 100% solve the problem, but it might make faithless electors a lot rarer, since they could be chosen from among those most enthusiastic of campaign workers. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/64 "2016-11-05T22:37:23Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > … I think most (not all) of us agree that the EC overall is more of a bug than a feature in today’s world. … In practical terms, of course, the system helps both parties’ bottom line–in that it lets them target resources to a few key states. If we had pure direct-election of Presidents, ad buys and campaign rallies would have to be diffused into additional areas. (Now, for example, the Democrats don’t have to spend a lot of time or money on California, because those winner-take-all electoral votes are pretty certain to come their way; but in a purely general election, they’d have to budget for California.) Not that this has anything to do with Constitutional issues. But it speaks to the resistance there would be to any concerted efforts to do away with ye olde Electoral College. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/65 "2016-11-05T23:17:56Z")
Even without this recent development, I’m curious: If the election outcome were 270 Hillary, 268 Trump (or vice versa,) how many of you would feel that that would be the be-all-and-end-all of it, no further shenanigans, or how many of you would be anxious and not feel truly settled until the EC had actually cast its votes? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/66 "2016-11-05T23:21:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Even without this recent development, I’m curious: If the election outcome were 270 Hillary, 268 Trump (or vice versa,) how many of you would feel that that would be the be-all-and-end-all of it, no further shenanigans, or how many of you would be anxious and not feel truly settled until the EC had actually cast its votes? My reaction would depend upon the popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/67 "2016-11-05T23:26:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Even without this recent development, I’m curious: If the election outcome were 270 Hillary, 268 Trump (or vice versa,) how many of you would feel that that would be the be-all-and-end-all of it, no further shenanigans, or how many of you would be anxious and not feel truly settled until the EC had actually cast its votes? Put me in the “not feel truly settled until the EC had actually cast its votes” camp. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/68 "2016-11-05T23:27:37Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Even without this recent development, I’m curious: If the election outcome were 270 Hillary, 268 Trump (or vice versa,) how many of you would feel that that would be the be-all-and-end-all of it, no further shenanigans, or how many of you would be anxious and not feel truly settled until the EC had actually cast its votes? I’d be quite anxious. With all of this nonsense about foreign countries trying to interfere in the US elections, you’d have to worry that any elector could be bribed, threatened, or blackmailed. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/69 "2016-11-06T01:13:10Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > I’d be quite anxious. With all of this nonsense about foreign countries trying to interfere in the US elections, you’d have to worry that any elector could be bribed, threatened, or blackmailed. This. Or just do something stupid for stupid reasons. High pressure has a way of bending people who aren’t used to bearing high pressures. ---
**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:** [November 6, 2016, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/70 "2016-11-06T01:47:52Z")
More than that, I would put money on right wing interests (or thugs) influencing the electors. It would start with an attempt to contest the election. If Clinton gets under 280, we could still see this play out. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/71 "2016-11-06T01:56:58Z")
Not to mention there are still developments that can occur in between the election and the Electoral College vote that can cause electors to decide maybe things have changed and that justifies them voting another way ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/72 "2016-11-06T10:15:39Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Sort of–the Founder’s also intended for the States to largely determine how electors are chosen and didn’t seem too bothered by them being more or less bound, as this all happened to varying degrees right away. > > The constitutionality of penalties I don’t think is that untested, Ray v. Blair confirmed that States can require electors to pledge to vote a certain way, albeit the same decision alludes to an assumed freedom of action for the electors in casting their actual votes (versus their pledge.) The pledge requirement, and after-the-fact penalties for being a faithless elector (pledged or not) are sufficiently different things that I think I’m on firm ground in saying the Constitutionality of the latter has not been tested. > [@](#): > > Two states have interesting statutes on the books, Michigan and Minnesota actually have laws that say if someone _actually votes_ differently than how they pledge, their vote is invalid. This would allow for an ex-post facto, full legal block to any mechanism for an elector casting a faithless vote. I believe the law in these States require the electors to “publicly ballot”, I suppose in the statehouse (State governments actually transmit the votes to Congress, not the electors), and the State government simply refuses to accept votes that aren’t pledged. > > If this is constitutional (and it hasn’t been tested) then legally we could effectively block all faithless voting. One problem, though, is it wouldn’t enforce ‘faithful’ voting, either. Say Hillary wins that 270-268 election. One MI/MN Hillary elector decides to vote for McMullin. Their votes are invalid, nobody has 270, and the blocked attempt at faithless voting has the same result as a successful faithless vote. Either way, the outcome has been reversed - or would be when it gets to the House. No, what we need here is a Constitutional amendment that, at a minimum, _removes the actual **people** from this step_, and ensures that electoral votes are no more than a scoring device, as they have functionally been for all the days of our lives. ---
**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:** [November 6, 2016, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/73 "2016-11-06T11:58:49Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, what we need here is a Constitutional amendment that, at a minimum, _removes the actual **people** from this step_, and ensures that electoral votes are no more than a scoring device, as they have functionally been for all the days of our lives. Or allow the college to fulfill its role, which is to weed out someone a potential tyrant, but only under specific circumstances. Philosophically, there is a place for a committee that can jump in and say “Nope, sorry, you got it wrong.” But those circumstances are extremely rare. Actually, though, a president-elect Trump is the perfect argument _for_ an electoral college, given the fact that he openly talks about violating the constitution. That, in and of itself, represents a clear and present danger to Constitutional law and the notion that a Commander in Chief is bound by the rule of law. If there’s a textbook example for why an electoral college should exist, it would be for someone like Trump. And if his election victory were to somehow pass and were the EC to sit on its hands and do nothing, then I think we could say, once and for all, the institution is utterly useless. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/74 "2016-11-06T12:04:50Z")
I think there’d be a good argument for that, if one could assume that a reasonable number of electors for each candidate took that point of view. But I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. And if Trump wins on Tuesday, the way to bet is that the EC will almost surely ratify that result. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/75 "2016-11-06T12:58:55Z")
The Washington Legislature should just replace the faithless electors, as is their right in Washington. Problem solved. Are they Sanders supporters or what? ---
**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 6, 2016, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/76 "2016-11-06T13:20:18Z")
The Electoral College can’t act as a check against tyranny, because in any case where they would so act, the voters as a whole would already have checked the tyrant. Trump is only a problem because a sizable fraction of the country doesn’t mind that he plans to violate the Constitution. And his electors will be chosen from among that sizable fraction. The current setup allows electors to change the outcome, but in practice, they can only do so for stupid reasons. Allowing stupid people disproportionate influence over outcomes is not a desirable feature of any system. That said, though, if we’re going to get rid of the human electors, we might as well just go all the way and get rid of the electoral votes entirely. There’s no good reason to not just use the popular vote, beyond “we’ve always done it this way”. ---
**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 6, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/77 "2016-11-06T13:38:58Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Or allow the college to fulfill its role, which is to weed out someone a potential tyrant, but only under specific circumstances. Philosophically, there is a place for a committee that can jump in and say “Nope, sorry, you got it wrong.” But those circumstances are extremely rare. Actually, though, a president-elect Trump is the perfect argument _for_ an electoral college, given the fact that he openly talks about violating the constitution. That, in and of itself, represents a clear and present danger to Constitutional law and the notion that a Commander in Chief is bound by the rule of law. If there’s a textbook example for why an electoral college should exist, it would be for someone like Trump. And if his election victory were to somehow pass and were the EC to sit on its hands and do nothing, then I think we could say, once and for all, the institution is utterly useless. What makes you think the EC will be more reasonable than the public at large? It seems equally likely that they’ll be worse. I propose to you the same thing I propose to people who argue that torture is in very rare circumstances necessary: let’s put severe penalties in place anyway. Let’s say 2 years of prison time with no possibility of parole, at minimum. If a member of the electoral college thinks that the fate of our nation is at stake, let them sacrifice personally in order to make it happen. If they’re right, they’ll emerge from prison a hero. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/78 "2016-11-06T13:52:14Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Or allow the college to fulfill its role, which is to weed out someone a potential tyrant, but only under specific circumstances. Philosophically, there is a place for a committee that can jump in and say “Nope, sorry, you got it wrong.” But those circumstances are extremely rare. Actually, though, a president-elect Trump is the perfect argument _for_ an electoral college, given the fact that he openly talks about violating the constitution. That, in and of itself, represents a clear and present danger to Constitutional law and the notion that a Commander in Chief is bound by the rule of law. If there’s a textbook example for why an electoral college should exist, it would be for someone like Trump. And if his election victory were to somehow pass and were the EC to sit on its hands and do nothing, then I think we could say, once and for all, the institution is utterly useless. Excellent post. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think there’d be a good argument for that, if one could assume that a reasonable number of electors for each candidate took that point of view. > > But I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. And if Trump wins on Tuesday, the way to bet is that the EC will almost surely ratify that result. Excellent post also. And thus we see the nub of the problem. The EC will be effective at its currently-intended role only when the electors are \*not \*chosen on the basis of Party before Country. Until we can solve that problem the EC as presently constituted is either a loose cannon or a nullity. ETA: As **Chronos** & **LHoD** just said while I forgot to refresh. :smack: > [@RTFirefly](#): > > … > No, what we need here is a Constitutional amendment that, at a minimum, _removes the actual **people** from this step_, and ensures that electoral votes are no more than a scoring device, as they have functionally been for all the days of our lives. This is a possible halfway house that preserves the current political balance of power between large and small states while eliminating the faithless / corrupt elector issue at a stroke. As such it’s potentially politically doable. Even if it only goes a tiny distance towards true direct election of the President. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/79 "2016-11-06T14:58:14Z")
> [@Frankenstein\_Monster](#): > > Almost as if it’s a taboo to ask why he can’t be replaced or disqualified. But I think I found the answer. He was elected (i.e. actual people voting for him) at the state convention in back in June. > > [Washington State Democrats 2016 convention (PDF)](http://www.wa-democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/2016CaucusandConventionPartyLeaderGuide-Updated.pdf) > > Understandable that people would be loathe to reverse an election. And I’m sure this guy would have his fervent supporters, too. I’ve never heard of anyone being fervent about an elector. I doubt anyone could even name one. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/80 "2016-11-06T15:10:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Seriously, Democratic Party of Washington State. There are seven million people who live there. You have at least a million voters who are strong Democratic voters. At least. Your job is to find 12 people out of that pool who aren’t going to fuck things up. Their job was to find somebody to express the political will of the Washington Democratic Party. I think it’s nuts, but maybe they’re cool with sending a recklessly vindictive Bernie Bro to stick a finger in Hillary’s eye. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669.md?page=5)