• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kaeden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,929
US
And by 'they', I'm referring to some time back I recall something about states being able to enforce who their electors would put in their electoral votes for if they chose to not vote accordingly, or have them removed, etc. I don't know the details about it but from a quick search, was it something about the Supreme Court back in May unanimously ruling that states can enforce who electors vote for? But yet *can* they still choose not to?

Whatever it was, is this something that will greatly deter it from happening again like it did in 2016 and other years prior, or is it still very much a possibility and I'm going to have a ton of anxiety until they vote in December?
 

Thequietone

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,052
Biden's probably getting over 400 EC votes so it's probably not going to be something to worry about.
 

Feep

Lead Designer, Iridium Studios
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,624
I am obviously not implying any actual threat of violence on my own behalf, but if faithless electors hand the presidency to Trump despite the will of the people, I'd expect their lives to immediately be in danger.

It would take a whole lot for someone to do that, I think.
 

RagnarokX

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,834
Faithless electors are electors who pledge to vote for a specific candidate but vote for someone else instead.

The issue here is something different. The Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. A popular vote is not required; states just agree to do it that way. In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the SCOTUS affirmed that states could choose whatever electors they want regardless of a popular vote. 29 states have GOP majority legislatures, including Pennsylvania, and they could technically choose Trump's electors regardless of the outcome of the popular vote.
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
IIRC the ruling was that States can punish people if they want but can't do anything about the vote

At any rate this isn't going to matter

Faithless electors are electors who pledge to vote for a specific candidate but vote for someone else instead.

The issue here is something different. The Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. A popular vote is not required; states just agree to do it that way. In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the SCOTUS affirmed that states could choose whatever electors they want regardless of a popular vote. 29 states have GOP majority legislatures, including Pennsylvania, and they could technically choose Trump's electors regardless of the outcome of the popular vote.

The GOP currently holds a majority of delegations but it's not the current congress that would vote on it
 

deimosmasque

Ugly, Queer, Gender-Fluid, Drive-In Mutant, yes?
Moderator
Apr 22, 2018
14,323
Tampa, Fl
Much like actual voter fraud it is something that happens to such a minor degree it doesn't matter.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,751
It's generally not a real worry because these are hand picked partisans by each party. Hillary Clinton, for example, is an elector for Biden in New York.
 
OP
OP
Kaeden

Kaeden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,929
US
So my understanding of the severity must be off because I thought this was pretty much the exact reason Hillary got the higher popular votes and still lost. Did those electors who didn't vote for her not amount to the difference to make this happen, which I assumed was the cause?
 

RagnarokX

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,834
It's generally not a real worry because these are hand picked partisans by each party. Hillary Clinton, for example, is an elector for Biden in New York.
The issue the OP is concerned about isn't faithless electors. The GOP has been telegraphing a plan to have states like PA just ignore the popular vote altogether and have the state legislature, which has a GOP majority, choose Trump's electors.
 

adj_noun

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
17,401
So my understanding of the severity must be off because I thought this was pretty much the exact reason Hillary got the higher popular votes and still lost. Did those electors who didn't vote for her not amount to the difference to make this happen, which I assumed was the cause?

They were faithless largely because they knew it wouldn't make a difference to who won the presidency. They decided to make personal statements.

Still a shitty thing to do.
 

Eamon

Prophet of Truth
Member
Apr 22, 2020
3,597
So my understanding of the severity must be off because I thought this was pretty much the exact reason Hillary got the higher popular votes and still lost. Did those electors who didn't vote for her not amount to the difference to make this happen, which I assumed was the cause?
What? If I am understanding your concern correctly, no - Hillary did not lose in 2016 due to faithless electors. She lost due to the (designed) structural misrepresentation of the American electorate within the Electoral College system.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,351
So my understanding of the severity must be off because I thought this was pretty much the exact reason Hillary got the higher popular votes and still lost. Did those electors who didn't vote for her not amount to the difference to make this happen, which I assumed was the cause?
What? Of course not. The final electoral vote count was 304 to 227. The faithless electors did not change anything.

Clinton lost despite winning the popular vote because the electoral college gives more voting power to lower-population states.
 

Htown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,347
So my understanding of the severity must be off because I thought this was pretty much the exact reason Hillary got the higher popular votes and still lost. Did those electors who didn't vote for her not amount to the difference to make this happen, which I assumed was the cause?
faithless electors didn't have anything to do with Clinton losing to trump. She lost the electoral college vote because the electoral college isn't directly proportional to the popular vote.
 
OP
OP
Kaeden

Kaeden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,929
US
They were faithless largely because they knew it wouldn't make a difference to who won the presidency. They decided to make personal statements.

Still a shitty thing to do.
What? If I am understanding your concern correctly, no - Hillary did not lose in 2016 due to faithless electors. She lost due to the (designed) structural misrepresentation of the American electorate within the Electoral College system.
Okay as I figured, I'm not grasping the situation of 2016 correctly which kind of means this thread wasn't really needed. Whoops, thx all for the clarity, prob gonna have it closed since it's not something to fear like I was starting to.
 

TreeMePls

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,261
So my understanding of the severity must be off because I thought this was pretty much the exact reason Hillary got the higher popular votes and still lost. Did those electors who didn't vote for her not amount to the difference to make this happen, which I assumed was the cause?
She outright lost the EC on Election Night, as in just going by the map from then and making it apply to the actual Electoral Vote 100% with no faithless actors would mean she wouldve lost. Her losing 5 votes didnt mean much
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,254
Sydney
Put it this way; if there are enough faithless electors to change the result in Trump's favour it means the Biden campaign and the Democrats have fucked up so badly America will have bigger problems.
 

RagnarokX

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,834
Okay as I figured, I'm not grasping the situation of 2016 correctly which kind of means this thread wasn't really needed. Whoops, thx all for the clarity, prob gonna have it closed since it's not something to fear like I was starting to.
No, it's just the GOP plan you're thinking of isn't faithless electors. It's a different concept. They're considering picking Trump's faithful electors in certain key states and ignoring the popular vote altogether.
 

strikeselect

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,132
The issue the OP is concerned about isn't faithless electors. The GOP has been telegraphing a plan to have states like PA just ignore the popular vote altogether and have the state legislature, which has a GOP majority, choose Trump's electors.

There's really nothing that Democrats can do in a situation like this. That why this system is complete shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.