# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/81 "2016-11-06T15:19:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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”. We could just use the neutron bomb option: get rid of actual electors, but keep the mathematical formulation of the electoral college. So, for example, if Clinton/Kaine wins Washington State, then that translates in 15 EV for Hillary for President, and 15 EV for Kaine for VP. No human electors, no meeting in the state capitol in December, no opening an oak box in Congress in January, etc. Once the Washington State vote is certified, then 15 votes goes to the winner (or however else the legislature chooses to allocate the votes). ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/82 "2016-11-06T16:25:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > My bigger issue is: what the hell is wrong with state political parties that they would EVER choose someone to be on a slate of electors such that the individuals have even the most remote chance that they would ever consider not voting for their party’s nominee? > > 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. Is that so goddamned hard? Evidentially, you aren’t up to the task, because you only found 11 and you threw a crank in there for who knows what reason. Could you not have visited the potential electors’ houses to see if, say, they even had a Hillary bumper sticker or yard sign? And if you didn’t find that their abode was festooned with Hillary signs, flags, pennants, decorations, and whatnot, are you sure that you couldn’t have just moved on down the list to the next guy? For Dems in WA State, to be an elector you need to show up at the Congressional District Caucus and convince most of the delegates there to vote for you. That’s it. It probably helps if you have a “Democratic Cred,” but really it could just be anyone off the street. This year, because a large percentage of people at the caucuses were Bernie supporters and they were loud and strident and they tended to vote for fellow Bernie supporters, it does not surprise me that a frustrated Bernie supporter is an elector. There’s really nothing the state party could do (with the rules as they are now). ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/83 "2016-11-06T16:45:50Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > …There’s really nothing the state party could do (with the rules as they are now). Agreed. If the EC vote is more “exciting” than it needs to be as a consequence of elector defectors on either side, expect to see that model of elector selection become a lot less popular across all states and both parties. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/84 "2016-11-06T16:49:56Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The Washington Legislature should just replace the faithless electors, as is their right in Washington. Problem solved. > > Are they Sanders supporters or what? The Washington Legislature is Republican. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/85 "2016-11-06T16:58:30Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Agreed. > > If the EC vote is more “exciting” than it needs to be as a consequence of elector defectors on either side, expect to see that model of elector selection become a lot less popular across all states and both parties. Or the caucus delegates will learn. My guess is that most of the people who voted for him have now either become Hillary supporters or are at least against Trump and are wishing that they hadn’t voted for this twit. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/86 "2016-11-06T17:16:51Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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. 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. My understanding is the statute actually _replaces_ someone who attempts to transmit a faithless vote (at the public balloting at the statehouse.) I went and read the specifics of the Michigan law, it requires: 1. Electors meet in the Michigan Senate chamber and cast their votes. 2. They must cast their vote for the candidate on the Michigan ballot _for the political party that nominated them._ (Obviously if the other party won, Republican electors wouldn’t be meeting to cast votes, they’d not have been elected, or vice versa.) 3. Failure to do 2, constitutes _resignation_ of the office of elector, and Michigan asserts that under its legal/constitutional powers to determine how electors are chosen, it is able to make such a vote equivalent to a legal resignation. 4. In the case of 3, the remaining electors select a replacement for the person who has resigned due to their behavior. Presumably this would be someone they know wouldn’t be a faithless elector, but if they were they could just repeat the process. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/87 "2016-11-06T17:24:34Z")
The Michigan law is possible because the Michigan electors are required to meet several days _prior_ to the deadline that Congress has set for the State to delivery its votes to the U.S. Capitol for counting. Since the electors have no legal mechanism to send votes themselves, their actual vote casting/sending is done _through_ the government of Michigan. The government of Michigan has put basically an audit role in place in which they just simply remove electors who do something they dislike, and have a procedure in place to replace them so that Michigan doesn’t lose any of its electoral votes. I don’t actually see too much constitutionally dubious about this–states used to just select the electors outright via state legislature. It was common early on, common but minority behavior up through 1824, and continued by South Carolina alone up through the election of 1860. There’s nothing that’s happened since to make it unconstitutional or invalid, so if the legislature has the constitutional authority to outright pick the electors, I doubt the Supreme Court would take issue with the legislature crafting rules and proscribing penalties for failure to follow them. Unlike Federal offices like Senate/Congress/Presidency which have more clear cut constitutional authority and independence of such state regulations of their office, the electors don’t enjoy that level of fleshed out independence in the text of the constitution–and I doubt the Supreme Court would be inclined to flesh one out for them. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/88 "2016-11-06T17:38:00Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > Or the caucus delegates will learn. My guess is that most of the people who voted for him have now either become Hillary supporters or are at least against Trump and are wishing that they hadn’t voted for this twit. The next time this’ll happen it’ll be a different city, a different party, and probably a different state. Not much opportunity for individual learning there. The parties are the ones with institutional memory and the opportunity for learning. Which they’ll express in the form of rule changes. Or not and get bit again. Eventually. Will be fun to watch. For very nail-biting values of “fun”. ---
**Author:** ![Briny\_Deep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/briny_deep/32/17188_2.png) [@Briny\_Deep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Briny_Deep)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/89 "2016-11-06T18:27:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Put me in the “not feel truly settled until the EC had actually cast its votes” camp. I’m not exhaling until she’s\* sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts. Quite a few weird things have already happened this cycle; why not more? \*Or for that matter, until he is. Though then it would be a very different sort of exhale. ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/90 "2016-11-06T20:38:05Z")
Another Bernie Bro elector says he won’t commit. > **[1 Washington state Democratic elector won’t support Clinton, another won’t...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hes-a-state-democratic-elector-but-robert-satiacum-says-he-wont-vote-for-clinton/)** > > A Democratic presidential elector in Washington state has declared he will not support Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College even if she wins the vote here. So in other words, if Hillary ends up having a worse than expected night, these two rogue electors be tipping points in and of themselves. And you want to know why I was so hostile to some of the Bernie Bros here - this is why. That’s what Bernie’s supporters are, a bunch of fanatics who probably don’t vote in every election but when they do they vote for hopeless candidates like Jill Stein and then they hand presidents like Obama a mandate on one hand, then flake out in an election and hand him a radical, obstructionist republican party on the other and then complain about how democrats never do anything and don’t represent their will. I don’t blame this on the institution of the electoral college. I see it for what it is: a warning sign that not only the republicans but also the democratic party itself could collapse and splinter into two factions within the next 4 years. I just wonder, though, how many other Bernie Bros are electors. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/91 "2016-11-06T21:11:45Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Another Bernie Bro elector says he won’t commit. > > [http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hes-a-state-democratic-elector-but-robert-satiacum-says-he-wont-vote-for-clinton/](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hes-a-state-democratic-elector-but-robert-satiacum-says-he-wont-vote-for-clinton/) > > So in other words, if Hillary ends up having a worse than expected night, these two rogue electors be tipping points in and of themselves. > > And you want to know why I was so hostile to some of the Bernie Bros here - this is why. That’s what Bernie’s supporters are, a bunch of fanatics who probably don’t vote in every election but when they do they vote for hopeless candidates like Jill Stein and then they hand presidents like Obama a mandate on one hand, then flake out in an election and hand him a radical, obstructionist republican party on the other and then complain about how democrats never do anything and don’t represent their will. > > I don’t blame this on the institution of the electoral college. I see it for what it is: a warning sign that not only the republicans but also the democratic party itself could collapse and splinter into two factions within the next 4 years. I just wonder, though, how many other Bernie Bros are electors. Yeah, the Bernie Bros are the left’s equivalent of Tea Partiers in that they’d rather set themselves on fire and burn to death than make very minor concessions on policy. Fortunately for the Democrats these guys, at least so far, haven’t hijacked the party, but if they ever did they’d be in as poor a shape as my own party. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/92 "2016-11-06T21:13:47Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > And you want to know why I was so hostile to some of the Bernie Bros here - this is why. That’s what Bernie’s supporters are, a bunch of fanatics who probably don’t vote in every election but when they do they vote for hopeless candidates like Jill Stein and then they hand presidents like Obama a mandate on one hand, then flake out in an election and hand him a radical, obstructionist republican party on the other and then complain about how democrats never do anything and don’t represent their will. Underlined the equivocation for you :). (To be clear: I’m a Sanders supporter who’s voted in every presidential and off-year election since 1992, when I was first able, and has voted in nearly every primary, including the replacement primary held this year when NC screwed up the first primary due to fucked up gerrymandering. #notallsanderssupporters) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/93 "2016-11-06T21:14:54Z")
> [@Briny\_Deep](#): > > I’m not exhaling until she’s\* sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts. Not even then, given how he fucked it up with Obama. ---
**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, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/94 "2016-11-06T21:18:15Z")
You know what they say: Once is an accident; twice is a coincidence; three times is enemy action. Though in this case I’d say twice would constitute enemy action. ---
**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 6, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/95 "2016-11-06T21:46:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The Washington Legislature should just replace the faithless electors, as is their right in Washington. Problem solved. > > Are they Sanders supporters or what? Aren’t the electors nominated by the state party? Can’t the state party just replace them with alternates? Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/96 "2016-11-06T21:49:14Z")
Under current Washington law electors can’t be replaced unless they resign. Legally they’re already nominated. ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/97 "2016-11-06T22:54:40Z")
The Washington Constitution permits their replacement though, AFAICT. So the legislature could fix this. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/98 "2016-11-06T23:26:10Z")
They could, and maybe would if Hillary wins by 2. But right now the Washington Senate is controlled by the “Majority Coalition” which is like 23 Republican Senators and 2 Democrats (so the coalition controls the chamber 25-24 despite Democrats actually having 26 Senators vs the Republican 23), the lower chamber and the Governor’s mansion are controlled by Democrats, but I’m not sure what would happen in the Senate. Maybe the 2 Democrats that caucus with the Republicans are probably pretty centrist Dems and are probably not Trumpers (in fact I imagine at least some of the Republicans in WA are pretty liberal by national terms, even the infamously conservative rural areas of Washington are nothing as radical right as the Southeast), so maybe the Senate would act, I don’t know though. Playing around with the map I think it’s highly unlikely she wins 271 votes (2 faithless would be enough to throw it to a House contingent election in that scenario.) In fact based on current projections I think a 269-269 split is more likely than 270-271 (and faithless electors don’t matter if it’s 269 unless one votes for the other candidate pushing them to 270), most likely if she wins it’s going to be by at least 5 electoral votes. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/99 "2016-11-06T23:37:29Z")
Just to reveal, probably the “most likely” path to 270 for Hillary would be (just covering swing states), winning NV, CO, VA, NC, but losing the swing states of OH, PA, NH, IA, FL. This result contains one fairly improbable outcome–Trump winning PA but losing NC/NV, but it’s not “impossible.” 538 has Trump at a 25% chance of winning PA and a lot of these other states are close to toss-ups, OH/FL breaking for him means he’s having a good day. But these events aren’t independent, if Trump is doing well enough to win Pennsylvania then likely he takes a lot of these close states, NC, NV, NC, maybe even CO and maybe even Michigan. I.e., if he wins PA he’s likely President by 20-30 EVs because something in the polling has just underestimated him. The most likely scenarios for election night “drama” revolve around NV, NC and NH, and in all those permutations Hillary either wins by at least 5 or she loses. If Trump wins NV/NC/NH and also carries all the toss-up states he’s slightly favored in now, he’ll be at 269 (which would be a tie.) But Maine’s 2nd District right now is leaning slightly Trump (+1 in the polls, 54% chance of going red per 538), so that would be 270 for Trump. If Trump carries all the shaded-red tossups but loses NH (and get’s ME2), he’s still sitting at 266 vs 272, so it’d take at least 3 faithless to toss the election. NV also may not be that competitive unprecedented early voting has happened with a huge Democratic advantage, in a stat where like 60% of votes are early votes, and where the EV was predictive of the final vote in 2012. So basically, the late polling shift (which might register a minor preference shift) we’re seeing that’s got NV shaded light red may not be indicative of what’s actually happened already with the voting. I.e. maybe Trump is doing better in Nevada now but he may have lost before that actually happened, since lots of Nevadans had already voted. If he loses NV while keeping ME2 and NH he’s down 10. If he gets CO in this scenario he wins by 3 EVs so 2 Hillary faithless don’t matter. Any of the other big states that he “could” win, but likely won’t (MI/PA/WI), would make him the winner by a comfortable margin so it’s all moot then. ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669/100 "2016-11-06T23:43:47Z")
I agree that it’s unlikely to matter. But it might be politically easier to do it \*before \*it matters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-has-her-first-faithless-elector/770669.md?page=6)