What if the US President is decided by a faithless Elector?

[RandBlade]

It's extraordinarily unlikely but there are scenarios that are possible that put the election result at something like 270-268 or 269 all etc

At this point it is possible that the results could be declared that a certain way with the result reversed by faithless elector(s).

To me that would be an absolute travesty. It's unlikely put possible.

Surely it would end up in the Supreme Court (and I know some states forbid faithless electors but many don't) but I don't see why see why they'd be able to overturn it legally.

[Steely Glint]

Everything about this election is unlikely so sure, why not

[Loki]

The Constitution gives the right to choose the president to the electors. The states might try to punish the electors for not voting a certain way (though the punishments are pretty weak), but they have no legal rationale for reversing a faithless elector's vote.

[Lewkowski]

The Constitution gives the right to choose the president to the electors. The states might try to punish the electors for not voting a certain way (though the punishments are pretty weak), but they have no legal rationale for reversing a faithless elector's vote.

Yeah but the Supreme Court rarely cares about legal rational as anything beyond after the fact justification for their decision? (Its 4-4 now so it would likely be a split decision and not change anything).

[Loki]

Not when the Constitution is this clear.

[RandBlade]

I imagine the SCOTUS would want to find any way imaginable of granting the victory to the election winner.

But even besides the SCOTUS will the people really stand for a faithless elector snatching defeat from an election victory?

[Flixy]

So, the actual votes have no actual legal power for who will become president? Your system is weird.

[Loki]

I imagine the SCOTUS would want to find any way imaginable of granting the victory to the election winner.

But even besides the SCOTUS will the people really stand for a faithless elector snatching defeat from an election victory?

If they ruled the Electoral College unconstitutional, they'd destroy their reputation for good. Not worth it.

If they didn't like the rules, they should have changed them before the election.

So, the actual votes have no actual legal power for who will become president? Your system is weird.

None at all. It's all an advisory opinion (kind of like referendums in Britain ). The Electoral College chooses the president. For the first half a century, a good third of all states didn't even choose electors on the basis of the popular vote in their state.

[Ominous Gamer]

I imagine the SCOTUS would want to find any way imaginable of granting the victory to the election winner.

Electoral College determines that, so...

Unless you mean the winner via popular vote. In which case they've already gone against that when they handed the white house to Bush.

[Hazir]

Isn't it so that it was intentional that there is a disconnect between the popular vote and the election in the college?

[RandBlade]

Electoral College determines that, so...

Unless you mean the winner via popular vote. In which case they've already gone against that when they handed the white house to Bush.

There's never been a precedent for an elected Electoral College being overturned by a faithless Elector. Bush v Gore is completely different.

[RandBlade]

None at all. It's all an advisory opinion (kind of like referendums in Britain ). The Electoral College chooses the president. For the first half a century, a good third of all states didn't even choose electors on the basis of the popular vote in their state.

A better comparison would be Parliament. If an MP defected after a very tight vote that could change who becomes PM. The difference is that MPs in Parliament serve five year terms and were elected with their own name on the ballot.

[Loki]

Isn't it so that it was intentional that there is a disconnect between the popular vote and the election in the college?

The popular vote wasn't intended to have a role at all. The electors are chosen by the state legislatures. The public got its say in choosing members of the House.

There's never been a precedent for an elected Electoral College being overturned by a faithless Elector. Bush v Gore is completely different.

There's never been a precedent for a faithless elector vote being deemed unconstitutional. Both law and precedent preclude any kind of challenge.

A better comparison would be Parliament. If an MP defected after a very tight vote that could change who becomes PM. The difference is that MPs in Parliament serve five year terms and were elected with their own name on the ballot.

It's not. Because both your referendums and our popular votes are beauty contests. They tell everyone who/what is popular. Nothing more.

[RandBlade]

When was the vote of an elector past challenged. Precedent isn't set until a challenge occurs and there's no challenge until it matters.

Your popular vote and our popular vote are direct equivalents. In three General Elections in the 20th century the popular vote winner lost the election.

[Loki]

When was the vote of an elector past challenged. Precedent isn't set until a challenge occurs and there's no challenge until it matters.

Your popular vote and our popular vote are direct equivalents. In three General Elections in the 20th century the popular vote winner lost the election.

Not challenging it 157 times by itself sets a precedent. And again, there's absolutely no constitutional argument that could be used to challenge a faithless elector.

No, your constituency-wide popular vote determines the winning MP. Our state-wide popular vote determines which set of electors will decide on the president.

[LittleFuzzy]

Isn't it so that it was intentional that there is a disconnect between the popular vote and the election in the college?

More or less. They weren't big on direct democracy, prevailing wisdom at the time (education being heavily focused on what would now be termed Classical Studies, i.e. Greek and Roman lit, history, etc) was that direct democracy lead to "bread and circuses." Instead the Founding Fathers set up a system focused on elected representatives making decisions, and which emphasized a state-centric focus. The only way they were able to get small states to agree to join the larger ones since the small fry didn't want to be overwhelmed and outvoted all the time.

The popular vote wasn't intended to have a role at all. The electors are chosen by the state legislatures. The public got its say in choosing members of the House.

Well, and in choosing the members of the state legislatures and their governors, who were the figures responsible for electors and senators. Indirect democracy, representative democracy.

Your popular vote and our popular vote are direct equivalents.

I'm not beginning to see how, you're going to have to explain the relationship which you think is analogous.

Not challenging it 157 times by itself sets a precedent.

Not really. If it wouldn't change anything then it could easily be regarded as non-justiciable and as such, even ignoring could not begin to set a precedent.

But as a matter of fact, it has been challenged multiple times in the past. It just hasn't reached SCOTUS. It's possible it's never reached the appellate courts at all, not sure on that. My recollection is that the district judges usually rule that they do not have the power to compel how an elector votes in the future, that there might be a judicial remedy after the fact but that before then there wasn't actually something to act against. And they don't have the jurisdiction to overturn the actual vote of the electoral college after it's met and fulfilled its duty, original jurisdiction in that case would fall with SCOTUS.

[Loki]

Well, and in choosing the members of the state legislatures and their governors, who were the figures responsible for electors and senators. Indirect democracy, representative democracy.

They were choosing a national constitution, not a state one. The states already had their methods for choosing governors and state legislators.

Not really. If it wouldn't change anything then it could easily be regarded as non-justiciable and as such, even ignoring could not begin to set a precedent.

But as a matter of fact, it has been challenged multiple times in the past. It just hasn't reached SCOTUS. It's possible it's never reached the appellate courts at all, not sure on that. My recollection is that the district judges usually rule that they do not have the power to compel how an elector votes in the future, that there might be a judicial remedy after the fact but that before then there wasn't actually something to act against. And they don't have the jurisdiction to overturn the actual vote of the electoral college after it's met and fulfilled its duty, original jurisdiction in that case would fall with SCOTUS.

Sloppy phrasing by me. The burden of proof (of persuasion) is on those wishing to alter the status quo. The status quo is electors can vote how ever they like.

Unless I'm missing something obvious here, the Supreme Court would have to decide whether the electors are acting in a manner consistent with state law and constitution (in their respective states). That is outside the purview of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, state courts have no jurisdiction over the electoral college.

[LittleFuzzy]

They were choosing a national constitution, not a state one.

Yes, so? We're talking about a national decision, the Presidential election. The public gets their say in that through the decisions of the state actors they've chosen to represent them and make decisions on their behalf.

Sloppy phrasing by me. The burden of proof (of persuasion) is on those wishing to alter the status quo. The status quo is electors can vote how ever they like.

Unless I'm missing something obvious here, the Supreme Court would have to decide whether the electors are acting in a manner consistent with state law and constitution (in their respective states). That is outside the purview of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, state courts have no jurisdiction over the electoral college.

SCOTUS would certainly prefer to avoid anything like deciding for itself whether matters of state law and constitutions were met. But they don't have to decide for themselves, they have been, are, and will continue to be perfectly willing to be advised by the state courts as to whether their rules and procedures were properly followed, and of vacating a result within their jurisdiction (like a state's certification of a panel of electors) when they're told those rules and procedures were not followed, so it can be redone properly. The same would apply here.

[RandBlade]

I'm not beginning to see how, you're going to have to explain the relationship which you think is analogous.

For both the US Presidency and the UK Parliamentary elections the national popular vote share is utterly irrelevant and of media interest only.

We don't elect a PM directly we have 650 MPs determined in constituencies. Similarly you have from memory 538 electors elected from what are effectively statewide constituencies. The primary difference between our systems is we have one MP per constituency whereas your state winners can take dozens of electors.

Either way though the national popular vote is moot. It has no standing at all. What matters under both systems is the sum of victories in the smaller votes not the popular vote.

[LittleFuzzy]

For both the US Presidency and the UK Parliamentary elections the national popular vote share is utterly irrelevant and of media interest only.

We don't elect a PM directly we have 650 MPs determined in constituencies. Similarly you have from memory 538 electors elected from what are effectively statewide constituencies. The primary difference between our systems is we have one MP per constituency whereas your state winners can take dozens of electors.

No. You ARE voting for a specific candidate and your vote is directly for that candidate. We're voting for a specific candidate, and there's a faceless person we have no clue about who is supposedly going to relay that vote. We're not voting for an elector or even a panel of them, in most states the electors aren't even selected by the party until after the general election. You can say that the aggregate voting totals are meaningless in any first-past-the-post system and be right, but that's a fairly empty piece of trivia and does not provide much likeness for analogies or comparisons between us and you.

[Lewkowski]

Issues like this come up every four years and they never matter. The election is already a forgone conclusion, stories being pushed like this is just fodder for an attempt to remove the electoral college.

[Loki]

Could be because we only had one close election in decades.

[Flixy]

Issues like this come up every four years and they never matter. The election is already a forgone conclusion, stories being pushed like this is just fodder for an attempt to remove the electoral college.

Could you give me any reason why it's a good thing why electors can disregard your vote? I mean, whether it happens or not, or even makes a difference.. why would you want a system like that?

[Lewkowski]

Could you give me any reason why it's a good thing why electors can disregard your vote? I mean, whether it happens or not, or even makes a difference.. why would you want a system like that?

I can't and I don't think electors should be able to change. I'm saying it is a bit of a non-issue. Its like a law that says you aren't allowed to paint barns blue if they face north on Tuesdays. Like... yeah its dumb but it doesn't actually matter.

[Loki]

It's a non-issue until it becomes an issue.

[RandBlade]

No. You ARE voting for a specific candidate and your vote is directly for that candidate. We're voting for a specific candidate, and there's a faceless person we have no clue about who is supposedly going to relay that vote. We're not voting for an elector or even a panel of them, in most states the electors aren't even selected by the party until after the general election. You can say that the aggregate voting totals are meaningless in any first-past-the-post system and be right, but that's a fairly empty piece of trivia and does not provide much likeness for analogies or comparisons between us and you.

That is precisely all that I am saying. Not because I want to find a deep and meaningful connection between our systems but just in reply to a prior far more fallacious comparison by Loki between your voting systems aggregate voting totals and our referenda (where the aggregate voting totals DID determine the winner).

[GGT]

I didn't understand the question.

What if....... is a good way to start a discussion, but it rarely means a good debate. We'll spend time on definitions, and who authorizes those definitions (much like Fuzzy's description of representative, indirect democracy) but not make much progress.

Rand, what you're really asking is......what happens if Trump wins the popular vote, but the electoral college votes for Clinton? It's a good question. I don't know if the "electoral college" reps would know how to answer it either. As things stand, if Trump loses he can claim the whole process is rigged, and his supporters would believe that, hook line and sinker.

[GGT]

ps, I look forward to the 2020 US Census, just three years from now, and how it will change the political landscape (ie gerrymandering). That will ultimately affect the Electoral College, right?

I like to think I'm an educated and informed citizen......but I don't really know who gets into the Electoral College, or how they get there, let alone how they're "supposed" to vote. I know more about state primaries and delegates/superdelegates than the Electoral College.

[RandBlade]

I didn't understand the question.

What if....... is a good way to start a discussion, but it rarely means a good debate. We'll spend time on definitions, and who authorizes those definitions (much like Fuzzy's description of representative, indirect democracy) but not make much progress.

Rand, what you're really asking is......what happens if Trump wins the popular vote, but the electoral college votes for Clinton? It's a good question. I don't know if the "electoral college" reps would know how to answer it either. As things stand, if Trump loses he can claim the whole process is rigged, and his supporters would believe that, hook line and sinker.

No I'm not asking that. The law is crystal clear the popular vote is irrelevant. The question is what happens if Trump wins the electoral college but it votes for Clinton or vice versa.

[GGT]

No I'm not asking that. The law is crystal clear the popular vote is irrelevant. The question is what happens if Trump wins the electoral college but it votes for Clinton or vice versa.

I don't know. Today's news said that votes were still being counted in Michigan, and it was still "too close to call", but its electoral college votes have already been awarded to Trump.