Think Faithless Electors Will Change The Outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election? Think Again.

On the electoral college campus by L.M. Glackens for Puck, June 12, 1907. Illustration shows Uncle Sam and William Jennings Bryan wearing caps and gowns during the graduation ceremonies at the "Electoral College"; Jennings is holding a book "Reveries of a Candidate".

On the electoral college campus by L.M. Glackens for Puck, June 12, 1907. Illustration shows Uncle Sam and William Jennings Bryan wearing caps and gowns during the graduation ceremonies at the “Electoral College”; Jennings is holding a book “Reveries of a Candidate”.

By Diana Williams

The electoral college has outraged millions of Americans–again. However, this time, instead of just looking to do away with the process, voters are also looking to the elusive faithless elector.

Alex Keyssar, a professor of history at Harvard and the author of the upcoming book “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?” said in an email, “Only if someone wins a majority of the electoral votes do they become president.”

A faithless elector is a member of the electoral college who refuses to cast their vote for the candidate who won the state that the elector represents. By now, most  voters know that they cast a vote for a slate of electors–not the actual president. In BackStory’s episode, “Pulling The Curtain,” host Peter Onuf broke it down like this: “Those electors actually vote for the candidates.” The number of electors a state gets varies. To figure it out, Onuf said, “Just add up the number of your congressional representatives and your two senators.”

(Learn more about the electoral college by listening to the entire segment.)

Every elector has the ability to flip, although depending on the state, some may be fined if they do so. Still, many Americans are putting their faith in the “faithless” elector and  petitioning their electors to vote for someone else. In some cases, anyone else.

A quick search of “electoral college” on change.org, the website for online petitions, returns more than 5,000 results. Searching for “faithless elector” brings those results down to 82.

Americans have gotten very creative with these petitions.The most popular faithless elector petition asks to “Make Hillary Clinton President on Dec. 19.” It has more than four million signatures. The second most popular, with more than 23,000 signatures, asks to “Put a Republican in the White House who is NOT Donald Trump!” This petition targets electors in states that won’t punish those who become faithless.

To date, Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by more than one million in the popular vote. Should that be enough to sway electors to cast their votes for anyone else, and Trump drops below 270, things could get interesting.

Without the 270 majority, Keyssar said “the election goes to the House [of Representatives] where each state has one vote. Presumably Trump would be elected, since most state delegations have Republican majorities.”

There have been faithless electors in the past. Philip Klinkner, a professor of government, pointed to the election of 1836  as an instance when a faithless group of 23 electors from Virginia “almost managed to dump the winning VP candidate.” That candidate was Richard M. Johnson, who lived and fathered children with his African-American partner, Julia Chinn. Because the electors withheld their votes, Johnson fell short of a majority. Still, the Senate voted for him anyway.

A more recent example is the 2004 presidential election when one Minnesota elector cast a vote for North Carolina Senator John Edwards instead of the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Klinkner wrote in a message that electors from Minnesota vote anonymously, “so we don’t know which one it was.”

With all of the post-election outcry, BackStory host Brian Balogh believes there is a possibility that we will once again encounter a faithless elector. Perhaps even more than one. Michael Montgomery, a political scientist who’s now a consultant with his own firm, wrote in an email that because the college “is a body of representatives rather than delegates” Clinton, in theory, could win.

Still, as Dec. 19 (the date members of the electoral college meet to cast their votes this year) approaches, many Americans may be betting that enough faithless electors will emerge and change the outcome. And they will probably lose because if there was one thing Keyssar, Klinkner, Balogh and Montgomery all agreed upon, the chances of it happening are close to zero.


Media Contact:

Diana Williams
BackStory Digital Editor & Strategist
434-924-6894
dianaw@virginia.edu

g

Comments (8)

{ Add New Comment
  1. Gerri

    The experts say chances are close to zero? Frankly, I’m beyond being surprised by ANYTHING this year! (And not in a pleasant way.)

    Reply
    • donna

      What “experts” are you talking about who know who is or isn’t good for the country? Are they the same ones who said Obama would be good? Or are you referring to the politicians that want business as usual so they keep their cushy jobs in government and get rich off of or as lobbyists? Maybe George Soros, who pays thugs to protest and riot and burn down businesses and hurt people for the good of the country? Name your expert.

      Reply
  2. Michael Snead

    Considering the New York democrats in 1844 seemed to employ illegal citizens (mostly Irish) to vote in the elections of 1844. For example in New York Massive electoral frauds also tipped the scales. Not much has changed in the last 150 years.

    Check out: “What God Hath Wrought” by Daniel Walker Howe, page 688-689. I am pleased by the results. I wish California and New York would be investigated by the electoral commission on how much fraud went on in those states.

    Reply
    • donna

      I agree Michael, Maybe Jill Stein could raise enough money to have the voters in 3 of those states verified to show us how popular hillary is.

      Reply
    • LAUREN SHAPIRO

      Let me get this straight. You’re saying there was voter fraud in New York in 1844, and therefore you want NY investigated now because in your entirely unsupported opinion nothing has changed in the last 150 years – nothing. Like for instance voter machines, registering for voting, attended voter rolls and sign ins at the polling sites strikes you as nothing does it?

      Reply
  3. LAUREN SHAPIRO

    The quotes in the article do not support the author’s conclusion that the chances of the electors being faithless are close to zero. These experts do not say that. And, the author misquotes that the winner must have a majority of the electoral votes. She later corrects herself or contradicts herself, depending on how you want to look at it, saying that the three highest vote-getters are referred to the House of Representatives for a decision. This is a sloppily written article.

    Reply
  4. Stewart Higdon

    Faithless electors..wow..I guess I would use a different term for them and I’m not that kind of a man to use those words..but let me ask this question. ..Just what would happen in this country if 538 electors changed the will of 63 million voters..it would be some of the ugliest days this country has ever seen..there would be anarchy in this great country..and not for a few weeks..I pray to god we don’t have to find out..I am frightened for my children and millions of innocent people because of the foolish acts of a few

    Reply

Reply