What if[edited]Trump is GOP candidate, wins, but electors don't vote for him?

[Trinopus]

@Saint_Cad

And those laws may or may not be unconstitutional.

They’re a little scary, but don’t they fall under the states’ power to select their electors?

If the state fires an elector for misfeasance before the elector is sent on to the real meeting and vote-count, how have they violated the constitution?

If once the guy convenes with the college, and then reneges, the state is jolly out of luck. But if, during the state certification of the electors, one of 'em says, “Trump? Nuh uh! My vote is for Rand Paul!” then, at that early point, why couldn’t they be dismissed and replaced?

“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”

In abstract theory, the state legislature could ignore the results of the election completely, and vote in a slate of electors that they prefer.

[Saint_Cad]

@Trinopus

They’re a little scary, but don’t they fall under the states’ power to select their electors?

If the state fires an elector for misfeasance before the elector is sent on to the real meeting and vote-count, how have they violated the constitution?

If once the guy convenes with the college, and then reneges, the state is jolly out of luck. But if, during the state certification of the electors, one of 'em says, “Trump? Nuh uh! My vote is for Rand Paul!” then, at that early point, why couldn’t they be dismissed and replaced?

“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”

In abstract theory, the state legislature could ignore the results of the election completely, and vote in a slate of electors that they prefer.

No to that last one. Federal law says that the Legislature must abide by the rules in place on Election Day. That came up during Florida 2000.

As for the other issue, I believe it is unconstitutional because the state cannot punish a person for their vote and the Constitution is very clear - the Electors elect the President not the states. Could a state pass a law not to count any votes for Trump in the general election and have it upheld? I suppose a law could be passed requiring an elector to vote for someone Constitutional eligible to the office but that is because I don’t believe the state needs to recognize invalid votes but even then you could argue it is up to Congress to throw out that vote and not the state.

[glowacks]

Ok, I misunderstood the procedure by which the electors vote. I assumed they all went to Washington to vote, but instead they only go to their state capital, and the results are transmitted to Washington. This allows the state to have more actual authority over the process than legal authority. It would allow states to have the at least physical capacity to override the wishes of the duly-chosen electors simply because it would be within their power to transmit to Washington whatever the hell they wanted to transmit, regardless of who was chosen as elector. It is a matter of debate as to whether the state would have the legal authority to remove someone as elector after they have voted; the state does get to choose electors however they decide, but I can certainly see a court saying that doesn’t mean you can replace them after they make their vote. We’d probably see something like what happened with Hayes’ election if such a thing were to come to pass.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Saint_Cad

And those laws may or may not be unconstitutional.

I thought the states could choose Electors any way they saw fit and that the Constitution didn’t have anything to say about it.

[Saint_Cad]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

I thought the states could choose Electors any way they saw fit and that the Constitution didn’t have anything to say about it.

Sure but once electors are chosen that doesn’t imply they can coerce how they vote.

[LSLGuy]

As Dirty Harry almost said …

‘Nothin’ wrong with votin’ … as long as the right people get [to] vote.

[iamthewalrus_3]

Constitutional crisis.

I expect that if there were enough faithless electors to change the outcome of the election, it would be the last presidential election to use the electoral college.

There are definitely arguments to be made for the electoral college being a buffer between the hoi polloi and the presidency, but I think the public outcry at having the election “stolen” would be such that a constitutional amendment removing it, and replacing it with direct apportionment of electoral votes by the popular vote winner of each state would fly through ratification.

[ElvisL1ves]

That process is actually already well along. States representing over 30% of the Electoral College have already passed it.

[DrDeth]

This would be a horrible thing. I’d rather have Trump as President than to have the EC pull shenanigans like that. :mad:

[AHunter3]

@VinylTurnip

So… really, nobody else is curious about the [edited] thing? Just me?

@running_coach

I think the original title was just “What if…”
Usually the editing mod leaves a post as to the change.

I was guessing the title had “Drumpf” instead of “Trump”. There’s some silly browser extension that people are using. I read about it in another thread.

[Johnny_Ace]

@LSLGuy

Bolding mine. I *almost *agree.

There’s another scenario you skipped: It could *also *happen if during the election the Republican Party is openly trashing Trump.

If the R Establishment falls short in their schemes to have, say, Romney run as 3rd party, they may just decide to nominate Trump then snipe at him. Or have a bunch of shiny new PACs do it. Whose provenance will leak somehow.

For sure, if Trump & the R Establishment start sniping, odds are very quickly it’ll be impossible to say who’s trashing who more or who started it. It’s kind of like grabbing the cat’s tail. Even if you don’t pull, he will and the tug-o-war is inevitable.

But I could imagine Trump’s “tack to the center” for the general would mostly be a matter of demonstrating smiling magnanimity (or is it faux invincibility) in the face of withering criticism from the Establishment. Which his base might eat up like Budweiser & bacon cheeseburgers.
The real point is that Trump might not choose to start that fight; the Establishment might start it for him. And if so the faithless elector problem looms large & Trump doesn’t have an obvious counter to prevent it. That risk was part of the package deal he accepted when he chose to run under the R banner rather than the D banner or one of his own making.

I don’t see the first scenario happening. Even Trump would have to realize that alienating even more of the party base would be counterproductive. Yours, I think, is quite possible, though.

[Frank]

@AHunter3

I was guessing the title had “Drumpf” instead of “Trump”. There’s some silly browser extension that people are using. I read about it in another thread.

That would not have been edited. Posters are free to use it in their own text. The issue relates to the extension changing quoted text.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@AHunter3

I was guessing the title had “Drumpf” instead of “Trump”. There’s some silly browser extension that people are using. I read about it in another thread.

The title was simply “what if”. As a bad title, it was explained by the mods. As are most non-explanatory titles in all forums.

[Hari_Seldon]

@Lord_Feldon

This is not true in every state. In some it’s a crime to vote another way (with exceptions for things like when the candidate dies), and in others an illegal vote causes an automatic vacancy for the elector’s seat.

Cite? Once they have voted, they have voted. They have no further role. They can’t be replaced because they have already voted and there is no provision for them to recall their votes.

AFAIK, the last time an elector failed to vote the way the state did was one elector in 1948 from, IIRC, Kentucky who voted for the Dixiecrat instead of the Democrat (Truman).

But, as stated, if no one gets a majority, the House votes with each state getting one vote and a majority of states needed for election. I suppose a state delegation could be equally split and not vote. Does a majority mean a majority of the states that voted? What a dreadful system!

[BrainGlutton]

@AHunter3

I was guessing the title had “Drumpf” instead of “Trump”. There’s some silly browser extension that people are using. I read about it in another thread.

“Drumpf” sounds like the name of a Discworld dwarf.

[Northern_Piper]

@Hari_Seldon

But, as stated, if no one gets a majority, the House votes with each state getting one vote and a majority of states needed for election. I suppose a state delegation could be equally split and not vote. Does a majority mean a majority of the states that voted? What a dreadful system!

Quorum for voting is two-thirds of the state delegations, and it must be an absolute majority of all the states, so 26 states minimum.

See Twelfth Amendment

[Lord_Feldon]

@Hari_Seldon

Cite? Once they have voted, they have voted. They have no further role. They can’t be replaced because they have already voted and there is no provision for them to recall their votes.

No, they have to sign a certificate attesting to their vote too. The laws (maybe it’s just one law actually, in Minnesota) in question replace them before that, and the remaining electors as well as the replacement they select would all sign a certificate not even mentioning the illegal vote.