Donald Trump could still theoretically not be president because of ‘faithless electors’

[Póg mo 1,749]

via The Independent

Not trying to give false hope or anything, but it's theoretically possible. December 12th, here we come.

(The Electoral College is such an odd system when you really sit down and think about it.)

Bad idea. Things are grim now, but I just don't want to think about what would happen if Trump was cheated out of becoming President.

[Dashinka 23,442]

Saw this in WaPo. It is interesting, they were pondering what would happen if two electors from Washington State chose to not vote for Hillary. Now, the left is trying to say they will flip 42 or so electors. Anyway, it is an interesting read.

Here's a wrinkle in the electoral math on Tuesday: What if we told you that 270 electoral college votes wouldn't be enough to elect Hillary Clinton president?

That appears to be the situation, after in recent days one Democratic elector in Washington state said he won't vote for Clinton and another in the same state said he won't commit to doing so -- meaning that if Clinton, the Democratic nominee, wins Washington state, she may have to win at least 272 electoral votes nationwide. The Seattle Times has the details:

No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way, said Robert Satiacum, a member of Washingtons Puyallup Tribe who had supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

He had earlier told various media outlets he was wrestling with whether his conscience would allow him to support Clinton and was considering stepping aside for an alternate elector. But on Friday, he sounded firm, even if the election is close.

I hope it comes down to a swing vote and its me, he said. Good. She aint getting it. Maybe itll wake this country up.

Bret Chiafalo, a Democratic elector from Everett who is also a Sanders supporter, said he is considering exercising his right to be a conscientious elector and vote for the person he believes would be the best president.

I have no specific plans, but I have not ruled out that possibility, he said.

This actually isn't even the first time this has come up this election cycle. In August, a Georgia Republican elector also announced that he might not vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump, citing his status as an immigrant and Trump's immigration policies. He later resigned. And later that month, a Texas GOP elector threatened to do the same but quickly walked it back.

All of these probably would have come into play and deprive Trump and Clinton of electoral votes, given Trump is favored to win Georgia and Texas, and Clinton is almost sure to win Washington state on Election Day.

But how can this happen? And is there any recourse? Back when the potential "faithless elector" in Georgia cropped up, we put together a little explainer. Below, we've updated it.

How rare is it?

First, it bears noting that these comments are striking because the electors are talking about withholding votes before the general election is even concluded apparently trying to send a message. This is certainly a sign of the times and the unhappiness with the two major-party nominees.

But even faithless electors writ large are exceedingly rare.

According to the voting reform group FairVote, there have been 157 faithless electors in American history. About 45 percent of those electoral votes were changed because the candidate died before the Electoral College voters were tallied. Among the rest, three electors chose to abstain, while 82 voted for a candidate other than the one they were required to support. That's fewer than two true faithless electors per election, given that we've had 57 presidential elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/how-faithless-electors-are-messing-with-our-electoral-maps-explained/

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Bad idea. Things are grim now, but I just don't want to think about what would happen if Trump was cheated out of becoming President.

Full riots with guns

[Dashinka 23,442]

Full riots with guns

And no safe places.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

And no safe places.

I am all in

[Dakine10 5,452]

If there is a change in the electoral college it isn't going to happen in an election year. That is too destabilizing. It would have to be something that changes in between election seasons. It is too polarizing otherwise. A president winning the electoral college but not the popular vote doesn't happen that often (5 times I think they've said?) and 40% of the cases have happened in the last 20 years so it may be something that starts happening more frequently in which case something may need to change.

Back when there were several fragmented parties running in every election, the electoral college was a very important tool to prevent that fragmentation from continuing on throughout the term.

I doubt they'll ever look seriously at changing it, but it's hard to really justify any need for it when were down to a 2 party system that's basically rigged against any serious competition from a third party ever happening. I agree though, if they ever look at changing it, it should be done at mid term, as far away from a presidential election as possible

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

He won people should just deal with it.

Im a Democrat and im ashamed of all the riots And protest burning flags....this is insane.

If people had issues with the electoral college they should have dealt with it before not now.

Now if they wanna change it now for future elections thats great.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Anitafeliz

[millefleur 5,039]

He won people should just deal with it.

Im a Democrat and im ashamed of all the riots And protest burning flags....this is insane.

If people had issues with the electoral college they should have dealt with it before not now.

Now if they wanna change it now for future elections thats great.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that electors should be faithless, merely just pointing out/reminding everyone of how odd our entire Electoral College system really is. The riots and violent protests are shameful, I totally agree with you. I think there's a lot of overreacting going on, just because it was such an unexpected outcome.

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that electors should be faithless, merely just pointing out/reminding everyone of how odd our entire Electoral College system really is. The riots and violent protests are shameful, I totally agree with you. I think there's a lot of overreacting going on, just because it was such an unexpected outcome.

There is one going on AGAIn in my state...

Last night someone was shot in another state.

This is madness. Half these people prob didnt even vote.

This is why its so important to vote the correct people in.

Small groups gathering everywhere insane.

We are the laughing stock of the world.

[eieio 1,594]

[RobertM54 36]

The same (mostly republican) states that benefit from the electoral college system would be required to validate an amendment to that system.

The system is designed in the same manner of as the senate, to keep the large states from dominating.

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

An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:

• The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;

OR

• A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):

• The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;

OR

• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.

Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.

[OriZ 3,157]

In 2004, had Kerry gotten 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would be president, even though Bush got 3,000,000 more votes than him. It goes both ways and it serves a purpose, to prevent 20 large cities from deciding what happens to the rest of the country. I think the US should never determine elections by popular vote alone. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to changes, but if anything gets done, I think it should just be so that more states are not winner takes all, maybe be more like Maine. Otherwise, I like the idea of states voting for president and not people when you're talking such a big country. You can't determine an election result based on such narrow margins with the popular vote, where for all you know some intoxicated college kids in an uber liberal large city like LA could tip the results in favor of one or the other.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

In 2004, had Kerry gotten 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would be president, even though Bush got 3,000,000 more votes than him. It goes both ways and it serves a purpose, to prevent 20 large cities from deciding what happens to the rest of the country. I think the US should never determine elections by popular vote alone. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to changes, but if anything gets done, I think it should just be so that more states are not winner takes all, maybe be more like Maine. Otherwise, I like the idea of states voting for president and not people when you're talking such a big country. You can't determine an election result based on such narrow margins with the popular vote, where for all you know some intoxicated college kids in an uber liberal large city like LA could tip the results in favor of one or the other.

NO its racism that's all it can be

[OriZ 3,157]

NO its racism that's all it can be

I think you forgot sexism.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I think you forgot sexism.

or small hands or or Orange hair