4 ms·

To me, the electoral college is the resolution of the whole alleged fraud thing. The electoral voters are the judges. The electoral voters are actually able t

To me, the electoral college is the resolution of the whole alleged fraud thing. The electoral voters are the judges. The electoral voters are actually able to vote against how their state voted; they might get voted out for doing so, and in some states they will face legal consequences afterward, but their vote still stands. So even if you think there was a fraud, if you couldn't convince your electoral voter, then that's it. Well, at least that's how it goes in most states. Looking it up: "In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced". I guess one could see exactly which states those are, and calculate the possible effects... it would be nice if the above paragraph applied to all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#Faithless_elector_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#Faithless_el...

eyelidlessness 6y ago
> The electoral voters are actually able to vote against how their state voted They’re actually not. Thanks to a (trump era) SCOTUS ruling, EC votes are now fully regulated by the states.
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Hmm... The article says: "On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in both Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca that states may enforce laws to punish faithless electors." Is that what you mean? That seems like a "may" rather than a "must", and also talks about punishing them afterward rather than about voiding their vote.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    It means that if states have laws regarding how their electors elect, those laws are the final word.
- wahern 6y ago
  SCOTUS has said that electors can be punished for not voting according to the rules laid out by the state. I'm not sure to what extent the various remedies available have been settled; that is, what can be done procedurally after a faithless elector casts their vote. AFAIK so far the effect has always been that their vote was counted and certified.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    This is not correct. Several votes were changed in 2016. And SCOTUS upheld their ability to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington (In particular, the Baca case was over replacing a faithless elector)
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
The one bit of data you're missing here is that electors are selected from the ranks of party loyalists. They are not impartial judges of what happened, nor should they be. It's unlikely there will ever again be a scenario where faithless electors void the will of the voters. Even in the case of Trump, a historically bad candidate, there were only a handful faithless electors, and most of them were defectors from Hillary Clinton!
- waterhouse 6y ago
  > ever again be a scenario where faithless electors void the will of the voters Again? Was there a first occasion? Wiki says "They have never swung an election", citing a Newsweek article. Or do you mean there won't be any faithless electors at all?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    A spurious "again." Although I do expect fewer and fewer faithless electors in the future, as more states work to make the linkage between the vote and the electoral college direct.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

> The electoral voters are actually able to vote against how their state voted They’re actually not. Thanks to a (trump era) SCOTUS ruling, EC votes are now fully regulated by the states.

waterhouse 6y ago
Hmm... The article says: "On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in both Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca that states may enforce laws to punish faithless electors." Is that what you mean? That seems like a "may" rather than a "must", and also talks about punishing them afterward rather than about voiding their vote.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  It means that if states have laws regarding how their electors elect, those laws are the final word.
wahern 6y ago
SCOTUS has said that electors can be punished for not voting according to the rules laid out by the state. I'm not sure to what extent the various remedies available have been settled; that is, what can be done procedurally after a faithless elector casts their vote. AFAIK so far the effect has always been that their vote was counted and certified.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  This is not correct. Several votes were changed in 2016. And SCOTUS upheld their ability to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington (In particular, the Baca case was over replacing a faithless elector)

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

The one bit of data you're missing here is that electors are selected from the ranks of party loyalists. They are not impartial judges of what happened, nor should they be. It's unlikely there will ever again be a scenario where faithless electors void the will of the voters. Even in the case of Trump, a historically bad candidate, there were only a handful faithless electors, and most of them were defectors from Hillary Clinton!

waterhouse 6y ago
> ever again be a scenario where faithless electors void the will of the voters Again? Was there a first occasion? Wiki says "They have never swung an election", citing a Newsweek article. Or do you mean there won't be any faithless electors at all?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  A spurious "again." Although I do expect fewer and fewer faithless electors in the future, as more states work to make the linkage between the vote and the electoral college direct.