Posted on 11/10/2016 5:00:43 AM PST by EBH
Although the idea of the electors trying to reverse the vote is occasionally discussed — such as after the incredibly close 2000 election in which George Bush narrowly beat Al Gore — going “faithless” is exceedingly rare.
More than 99 percent of electors throughout American history have voted as pledged, according to an analysis done by the New York Times.
The last faithless elector reared his roguish head back in 2004, when a lone anonymous voter in Minnesota declined to vote for Democrat John Kerry and instead voted for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards.
The rogue’s vote was purely ceremonial, as Bush already had 286 electoral votes ensuring his re-election.
Faithless electors are barred in only 29 states from ignoring the will of the voters, though the penalties are light. And a faithless elector has never swung an election.
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College because they were actually “afraid of direct democracy,” according to FactCheck.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
There are scenarios worth worrying about and there are scenarios that aren’t. This is in the second category.
:: there are dozens out there from different sources ::
That is the issue; they don’t coordinate among the results.
:: there are dozens out there from different sources ::
That is the issue; they don’t coordinate among the results.
Just more proof of cognitive dissonance by the lefties.
I have long said it will not be over until after the Electoral College votes. Even if flipping electors is not probable, it does not mean they will not try.
The media tried to stall Trump’s count at 279 (or was it 276) for as long as they could. Hell they kept him at 170 on election night until Hillary could be counted there (instantly being credited Hawaii and California’s votes will holding off on calling Georgia, Florida, et al...)
They even tried depicting Texas as light blue on election night. FRAUDS.
I apologize for the double.
The purpose of articles like this is to raise hopes of those liberals who are borderline deranged to give them an excuse to become even more violent.
“Or ... maybe Jeb still has a chance!!!!”
He DID get one vote at my precinct. So ya never know.
NYet Times is still LYING that Trump ONLY has 279
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
Still won’t ID Michigan or Arizona in totals
Bill Clinton is one of the electors from New York State. Donald Trump, Jr., would have been one of the electors if his father had carried New York.
4 % fewer people voted than in the 2012 election.
That means Hillary suppressed turnout MUCH more than Trump....or he’d have lost.
Haven’t you heard that analysis all over the MSM?....../s
Totally agree.
This article shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the US Constitution. The President of the United States is not elected directly by a vote of the people. It is a vote of the STATES. Traditionally, states vote in the electoral college according to their state population’s majority; BUT the Founders actually did not want them to be tied to that absolutely. They allowed for circumstances where the populace might be lead to vote for a candidate against the interests of their particular state. Remember we are the United STATES of America. Anything done to further diminish the states right in this area will further our road to direct democracy and our sure ruin.
In the case of Mrs. Clinton, I doubt very seriously that any swing state elector will vote contrary to his state given their was such a decisive vote for Mr. Trump. Also Mr. Trump does enjoy a sizable lead over Mrs. Clinton in the electoral college.
I’ve been trying to find one but I think they are all in denial and have not updated the map since the day after the election.
Michigan went to Trump and they still have not posted that. They still have him at 279 EV’s.
I don’t think they can bring themselves to admit it, IMO.
That's where she went for information about the founding documents and ratifying debates?
I just went there and found this:
The Electoral College is not a formality, although the Electoral College vote itself may be perfunctory. The Electoral College still serves an important function in balancing the interests of the citizens of the smaller states against the citizens of the larger states.
Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College? The short answer is the framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy, and provided an extra layer to ensure, as James Madison put it, that “factions” of citizens with a common interest don’t harm the nation as a whole. However, the Electoral College has become a mere formality.
That's why Hillary Clinton's popular vote win was garnered by the high populations of California and New York, even though their Electoral College votes were capped at 84.
-PJ
Typical democrat hypocrisy.
What do you mean “borderline”?
37 electors don’t want to be dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.