Faithless Electors, should they be disallowed nationally?

There were seven faithless presidential electors. Aside from 1872 - death of Horace Greeley - it is the greatest number since electors began casting one vote each for president and vice president (12th Amendment, 1804).

Hillary Clinton won Washington; however three electors cast votes for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle
Hillary Clinton won Hawaii; however one elector cast a vote for Bernie Sanders
Trump won Texas; however one elector cast a vote for Ron Paul, another for John Kasich

Three additional faithless votes, one each in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, were disallowed.

Tie scenario
270 to win has Republican 219, and Democrat 232 with tossup
29 Florida
20 Pennsylvania
16 Michigan
10 Wisconsin
11 Arizona
1 Maine

Scenario for no decisive majority
Republican wins 219 + 29 Florida + 11 Arizona + 10 Wisconsin = 269 EC votes
Democrat wins 232 + 20 Pennsylvania + 16 Michigan + 1 Maine = 269 EC votes

A third party candidate who wins a few EC votes could deny any candidate the 170 EC votes they need to win. While the presumption is that the Republican candidate could win the vote in the House, any viewer of HBO's Veep is aware that such a continengency election could have a surprise outcome.

Yes.

It is ridiculous that our system even allows for them. I recall this being an issue in the Bush v. Gore election and Gore specifically said he wouldn't accept faithless votes.

I'd suggest you make it clear in your examples which Clinton you're talking about.

Quote: Wizard

Yes.
It is ridiculous that our system even allows for them. I recall this being an issue in the Bush v. Gore election and Gore specifically said he wouldn't accept faithless votes.

The 2000 election was very close in EC votes. It seems that they are not illegal in all states allowing for the possibility of someone picking the POTUS in 2020.



tie scenario for 2020

Maine abandoned the "winner take all method" in 1972, and Nebraska in 1992.

Interesting, you have me looking this up; I came across something unexplained,

Quote: wikipedia article

In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the U.S. Electoral College voted for a candidate different from whom they were pledged to vote. This movement, dubbed the "Hamilton Electors", ... attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a more moderate Republican ... As a result, the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two.

So, if it was an attempt to find 37 Republicans, why did Hillary lose more electors than Trump?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

Quote: odiousgambit

So, if it was an attempt to find 37 Republicans, why did Hillary lose more electors than Trump?

The name is taken from Alexander Hamilton's opinion of the Electoral College and its responsibilities. As stated in Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68, "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Essentially the movement to find 37 Republicans failed and the 7 successful faithless electors ended up making personal statements.

The danger of electors going rogue and changing the outcome of an election was much stronger in 2000. GW Bush had 271 electoral college votes (you need 270 to win) and if two electors could abstain from voting, he wouldn't have a majority. Many states have laws allowing the state to over rule a personal decision made by an elector. In 2016 three electors from three different states decided to go faithless and had there vote disallowed by state law. But many states do not have such a law.

Imagine a scenario where we have a very close election

Republican wins 219 + 29 Florida + 11 Arizona + 10 Wisconsin + 1 Maine = 270 EC votes
Democrat wins 232 + 20 Pennsylvania + 16 Michigan= 268 EC votes

Hypothetically electors from a state that went Republican, but who represent a congressional district that votes primarily Democratic could go rogue.

TX 9th district (South Houston) has voted Democratic for congress in all but one election since 1883 (single term Republican won in 1994) and we know that two faithless electors in TX were not punished for their vote in 2016. It's a good example of someone who could go rogue in 2020.

I once sympathized with the idea of dispensing with the electoral college altogether in favor of just using the general popular vote. I've changed my mind, I now think it is important to preserve it. The smaller states in population need to have a measure of equality, and I think everybody agrees the arrangement with senators is a good way to do it. But I also now think it should indeed expand to presidential elections as it does with this electoral college.

Otherwise the two coasts will be electing the president every election, period.

However, I think the idea of faithless electors should be eliminated. Some other rule should come in to play in the case of death . Which, btw, has a real possibility with the ages of Biden and Trump, about 76 I think in both cases.

Quote: odiousgambit

I once sympathized with the idea of dispensing with the electoral college altogether in favor of just using the general popular vote. I've changed my mind, I now think it is important to preserve it. The smaller states in population need to have a measure of equality, and I think everybody agrees the arrangement with senators is a good way to do it. But I also now think it should indeed expand to presidential elections as it does with this electoral college.

Not sure what you are saying here, can you rephrase?

EC is working exactly as intended and why intended. If anything, smaller states have it worse now than they did then. This national compact thing is playing with fire IMHO.

Quote: AZDuffman

This national compact thing is playing with fire IMHO.

The national compact is meaningless, because nobody is going to change. Consider the 7 states and DC with 3 EC votes apiece. Try and imagine them making a compact to vote their 24 EC votes as a single bloc. Democrats would never go for it because they would end up giving up 9 almost certain EC votes against a long shot of earning a total of 24.


Montana
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alaska
Wyoming
Delaware
Vermont
District of Columbia

If you could not get 8 small states to join a compact, what chance do you have of getting a large state?

Quote: Pacomartin

The national compact is meaningless, because nobody is going to change. Consider the 7 states and DC with 3 EC votes apiece. Try and imagine them making a compact to vote their 24 EC votes as a single bloc. Democrats would never go for it because they would end up giving up 9 almost certain EC votes against a long shot of earning a total of 24.


Montana
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alaska
Wyoming
Delaware
Vermont
District of Columbia

If you could not get 8 small states to join a compact, what chance do you have of getting a large state?

The national compact doesn't need small states to be successful, but it *does* need at least a couple big red or swing states to join, which they are unlikely to do. Good article by Nate Silver: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/
The numbers are out of date (2014), but the conclusion still stands.

Quote: AcesAndEights

The national compact doesn't need small states to be successful, but it *does* need at least a couple big red or swing states to join, which they are unlikely to do. Good article by Nate Silver: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/
The numbers are out of date (2014), but the conclusion still stands.

What I do not get is why do they need a compact? Just change the state law so they send their votes to the majority. That would show guts. Maybe I do get it?