20 ms·

Yet all the electors have to "vote" for the marginal winner. They aren't compelled to. One of the electors from WA says they won't vote if Clinton wins. It's p

• zwily 10y ago
  In some states, they are compelled: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
  • MichaelBurge 10y ago
    From your own link, "The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws that punish electors for actually casting a faithless vote." And, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text -- that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."
  • WildUtah 10y ago
    No penalty has been applied to faithless electors, partly because such a penalty is unconstitutional. Supreme Court cases US Term Limits v Thornton and Ray v Blair make it clear that states cannot force electors to vote in any particular way once elected, though they can require electors to solemnly promise in advance to do so. In practice, electors don't violate those promises unless the promise turns out not to matter. Sometimes an elector will chose to show off by choosing some other candidate to vote for from his promised choice, but always only after checking that it won't affect the final result. Parties pick people that are proven loyal enough over time to be depended on.