# What if faithless electors changed the winner of an election?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-faithless-electors-changed-the-winner-of-an-election/751121>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [April 3, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-faithless-electors-changed-the-winner-of-an-election/751121 "2016-04-03T20:23:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 6, 2016, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-faithless-electors-changed-the-winner-of-an-election/751121/41 "2016-04-06T04:01:57Z")

</div>

If a republican were to win a race because of a faithless elector, we’d probably hear a lot about how it’s perfectly constitutional and that we should continue worshipping our constitution as though it were a bible. If, on the other hand, a democrat were to win because of faithless electors, we’d have states passing constitutional amendments to stop this outrage.

Basically it was the republicans who proposed the 2 term limit amendment to the constitution. Got tired of having their butts whupped by FDR.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-faithless-electors-changed-the-winner-of-an-election/751121/42 "2016-04-06T13:55:32Z")

</div>

> [@asahi](#):
>
> Basically it was the republicans who proposed the 2 term limit amendment to the constitution. Got tired of having their butts whupped by FDR.

And they used a brief period of majority to pass the thing - to spite a dead man.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\
**Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-faithless-electors-changed-the-winner-of-an-election/751121/43 "2016-04-06T14:22:18Z")

</div>

> [@Chronos](#):
>
> If the incumbent got 50.499%, did he clearly win? Then why would your rule say to throw him out?
> 
> No matter what your procedure, you’re going to have some line where, just a little bit on _this_ side of the line, guy A wins, and just a little bit on _that_ side of the line, guy B wins. And if the outcome is really close to that line, you’re going to be unsure which side of the line it’s really on.

If the procedure is “have a recount if the vote is within X threshold of a tie”, then there’s no real problem, as long as X is large enough that a recount is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome of an election with an initial-count vote tally near (50%+X) to (50%-X). The uncertainly is whether or not to have a recount that is almost guaranteed to leave the result unaffected. It only becomes a problem if silly Rube Goldbergery is introduced, e.g.:

> [@](#):
>
> You’d have to create a better recount provision than just “do a national recount”. We’d be best off just assuming a tie and having a tiebreaker rule of some sort if the election is within 0.5%. A national recount would be a nightmare. My preferred tiebreaker rule would be that incumbent party loses if it’s that close.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-faithless-electors-changed-the-winner-of-an-election/751121.md?page=2)