If Donald actually get enough Electoral College votes to "Win" the election,

[Stonepounder]

would the electors decide to basically nullify the 'will of the people' and vote for someone else?

Seems to me that was part of the actual intent of having the Electoral College (along with giving some extra clout to the small states). The electors are 'pledged to and expected to vote for' their winning candidate, but are not required to do so.

So, we could actually see Dumf 'win' the election and lose to the Electoral College.

Thoughts?

[tonyt53]

1. With Gore it was the other way around.

[One Black Sheep]

2. No way, that scenario would result in a revolution

Probably a violent revolution.


If Trump wins the presidency, we will just have to accept it, fair and square.

But I keep seeing posts saying Hillary has it in the bag anyway, and is going to win an electoral college landslide, so why worry?

[PoliticAverse]

3. Some might rebel but would they do so if the Democrats take the House and would be the ones...

deciding the next President?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

4. Since the slate of Electors from each state . . .

. . . pledged to the GOP candidate would be GOP/Trump "loyalists" to start, why would they not cast their votes for Trump after he'd won that particular state? I guess I'm not following your thinking here. The Electors are not politically "neutral" actors to start; they are partisans.

In a close outcome -- say, a 270-268 result -- there might be some intrigue regarding one or more possible "faithless Electors," but one would not expect a wholesale defection.

[unblock]

5. the people who are picked to be electors are picked on the basis of tremendous loyalty

given that their sole job is to vote for that particular candidate.

it's rare, but on the odd occasion an elector does vote for someone other than the candidate they're supposed to, although i don't think they've ever voted to the main opposing candidate.

but it has never changed the outcome of the election.


what can happen is that a state might not certify any electors, or might send two sets of electors, or otherwise invalidate their own role in the selection of the president. such a case might end up before the supreme court to decide, or it might get thrown into the house for them to decide.

[exboyfil]

6. Imagine a Supreme Court 4-4 decision

That is the stuff of nightmares.

[unblock]

7. i know. they'd likely duck the issue and kick it to the house.

which would be interesting indeed. clearly clinton doesn't win with a republican house, but maybe that's the republican's opening to get someone other than trump in.

obviously, better for all of us if clinton wins outright by an undisputed electoral majority.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

9. The procedure is described in considerable detail . . .

. . . in the provisions set forth at 3 U.S.C. sec. 1-19.

The XII Amendment, of course, dictates what happens if no candidate receives the necessary majority of the Electoral votes cast (i.e., at least 270). The U.S. House of Representatives would decide the Presidency; the Senate would decide the Vice Presidency. The vote in the House would be taken on a state delegation-by-state delegation basis, with a candidate needing the votes of at least 26 state delegations to win.

However, only the top three candidates who received Electoral votes would be eligible to be elected/selected by this method. Thus, if, for instance, the Electoral vote ended in a 269-269 tie between Clinton and Trump (i.e., no other person received any Electoral votes) the House would have to choose between either Clinton or Trump. In such a circumstance, the House GOP members couldn't "get someone other than Trump in."

[exboyfil]

10. I was thinking more along the lines

of a Gore v. Bush with a contested Electoral slate from a state.

Some states I think have laws against faithless electors, but they are probably unconstitutional. Whatever ends up in the box is what counts.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

11. I agree . . .

. . . that, regardless of the penalty a state may impose on a "faithless Elector," a vote so cast would nevertheless be valid. Indeed, as far as I'm aware, even those state laws that impose such penalties (typically a nominal monetary fine) do not otherwise assert that a "faithless Elector's" vote is not valid. It's questionable, as you note, whether such laws would be constitutional, but I don't think such laws even exist.

[unblock]

12. true, they couldn't pick just anyone at that stage.

but they would have an opportunity to try to twist the arm of some elector to vote for paul ryan or whoever they think is preferred over trump.

let's say trump is ahead but without a majority of electors because of legal challenges -- e.g., trump is ahead 269-249, with 20 electors being disputed. lacking the 270 needed to win outright, the election goes to the house. you are correct, in that scenario the house would be limited to picking either trump or clinton.

however, knowing that, they might convince one of the electors -- possibly a clinton elector -- to vote for a compromise candidate. even though that candidate only got one electoral vote, the house could still pick them, as one of the "top three" choices.

alternatively, the house could deadlock any not pick anyone, leaving trump's choice as vice president to become president. i'm not holding my breath, but that might be a choice more acceptable, at least to the republican establishment.


of course, the simple solution is just to vote for clinton.

[mvymvy]

13. State Laws

Existing federal law requires that presidential electors be appointed on a single designated day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

An attempt by a governor and legislature to change the “rules of the game” between Election Day in November and the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College would violate the Impairments Clause and be invalid because it would violate existing federal law.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) grants Congress the power to choose the time for appointing presidential electors:

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Existing federal law (section 1 of title 3 of United States Code) specifies that presidential electors may only be appointed on one specific day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

If Trump won the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent Trump from being elected President of the United States

[unblock]

14. if trump won with 270 votes then yes, he would become president

and any effort to dissuade one of those 270 electors would not only fail but very likely lead to great violence -- it would be rightfully viewed as cheating.

at issue is rather what would happen if there was a tie, or if enough of the electors were disputed so as to leave neither candidate with a clear majority of electors (as happened in 1876).

i'm not suggesting that anyone could change *who* the elector is (i agree, there is clear law on that point) other than via court cases challenging outcome the election itself (fraud, incorrect vote counting, etc.).

i'm suggesting that if the electoral college result is not clear, then one of the clearly chosen electors might be persuaded to cast a faithless vote in order to enable the house to decide the election in favor of someone else.

yes, the electors are chosen precisely for their great loyalty, but in fact *hillary* might herself ask her electors to vote for someone else just to give the republican house a republican alternative to picking trump.

[mvymvy]

18. Laws in effect on Election Day

Existing federal law requires that presidential electors be appointed on a single designated day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

[unblock]

19. an elector can vote however they want

and individually face the consequences should their state decide to prosecute.

however, i'm thinking this comes about because the republican leaders in the house and hillary and, let's say, the governor and attorney general of the state of the chosen elector all agree to the plan. in any event, i'm not aware of any unfaithful elector even being prosecuted, and i'd bet that it had happened at least once while theoretically subject to those state laws. states aren't required to prosecute.

[mvymvy]

20. State Laws

An attempt by a governor and legislature to change the “rules of the game” between Election Day in November and the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College would violate the Impairments Clause and be invalid because it would violate existing federal law.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) grants Congress the power to choose the time for appointing presidential electors:

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Existing federal law (section 1 of title 3 of United States Code) specifies that presidential electors may only be appointed on one specific day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The governor, attorney general, or legislature cannot appoint presidential electors after Election Day (i.e., after seeing the election results in its own state or other states).

[unblock]

21. you keep repeating this. i'm not disagreeing with anything you say

but neither does it prevent the scenario i'm talking about.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Electors are nominated by their parties at state conventions or by a State Parties Central Commimtte

I doubt Republicans will choose electors who have a surfeit of morals, ethics, or concern for the well-being of our average citizen. They will be people with some link to the Donald.

Also, having them rebel and elect someone who didn't run, even someone who is not Trump, would destroy every vestige of Democracy. Such an act would be every bit as dangerous as Trump.

Trump's election would prove that Americans are willing an happy to elect a white supremacist, racist, misogynist, and bigot.

Having electors rebel in mass is a coup d'etat by political operatives.

[CobaltBlue]

15. Stonepounder—Trump will not be POTUS.

An aggregation of national and state-by-state polls are needing to suggest a Republican wave is taking shape.

The Democrats are poised to flip the Republican-held for majority of the U.S. Senate.

That right there tells us Election 2016 will likely be a Democratic hold of the presidency.

Be on the lookout for the 24 states which carried for losing Republican Mitt Romney. If Trump was flipping the presidency…all those states would be the starting point of Trump winning over the map—before his pickups of any Barack Obama/Democratic 2012 states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado would do it). If any Romney state flips from 2012 Republican to 2016 Democratic…game over! (Look first to North Carolina.)

[sufrommich]

16. Trump would need a miracle to win. He's actually losing white men now,the

backbone of what's left of the Republican party.

[roamer65]

17. I don't see him becoming POTUS.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will pick up a heavy right wing protest vote and many states in the West will go Democratic or Libertarian.