Faithless Electors

Auld Phart

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Mar 3, 2013
81,722
42,948
2,605
On the off chance faithless electors refuse to vote for Trump and he goes beneath the majority (270), the House holds a 'contingent election'.

(this based on the idea that they would just not vote,)

"In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner."

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Which brings up the question, who would be the third 'candidate' in said election?

Obviously Clinton and Trump would be the top 2, but would Cruz or Sanders be the third?

Your ideas?
 
I thought Paul Ryan was the "moderate" choice that more people wanted.
But since he has young children, I think he turned down any chance for the Presidency
this time around, and asked to table that potential for future elections.
 
The third choice would be the most vote getters in the election, so it would be Johnson or McMullin.\

The House would vote for Trump. He has 29 states on which he can count.
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of posters here that are under the impression that signing online petitions will convince Electors to either change their vote, switch their vote, or not vote at all.

without understanding what happens after
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of posters here that are under the impression that signing online petitions will convince Electors to either change their vote, switch their vote, or not vote at all.

without understanding what happens after
I wonder how many took civics in high school......? Is it even still being taught or has it been deemed noninclusive therefore racist?
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of posters here that are under the impression that signing online petitions will convince Electors to either change their vote, switch their vote, or not vote at all.

without understanding what happens after

Well, the idea is that it will be either A or B so if A loses, B wins. If B wins, A loses.
 
On the off chance faithless electors refuse to vote for Trump and he goes beneath the majority (270), the House holds a 'contingent election'.

(this based on the idea that they would just not vote,)

"In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner."

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Which brings up the question, who would be the third 'candidate' in said election?

Obviously Clinton and Trump would be the top 2, but would Cruz or Sanders be the third?

Your ideas?

Unless one of those faithless electors votes for someone else, it will be no one. Only the top three EV contenders can be selected by the house. If only two candidates have EV there will only be two choices for the House
 
On the off chance faithless electors refuse to vote for Trump and he goes beneath
If only two candidates have EV there will only be two choices for the House
'contingent election'.

(this based on the idea that they would just not vote,)

"In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner."

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Which brings up the question, who would be the third 'candidate' in said election?

Obviously Clinton and Trump would be the top 2, but would Cruz or Sanders be the third?

Your ideas?

Unless one of those faithless electors votes for someone else, it will be no one. Only the top three EV contenders can be selected by the house. If only two candidates have EV there will only be two choices for the House

thanks
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

I always knew you had class candy I never thought you had this much class..

Love you girl
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

I always knew you had class candy I never thought you had this much class..

Love you girl

I thought you were leading detectives around your land showing were bodies were buried. Out on bail?
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

I always knew you had class candy I never thought you had this much class..

Love you girl

I thought you were leading detectives around your land showing were bodies were buried. Out on bail?

Crack is wack. Huh?

.
 
The electors are picked by the candidates, they are not uncommitted, they are dedicated "guaranteed" supporters. If one or two switch they were not selected correctly and must have lied to the candidates. Two things are true, the electoral college is not changing, and electors should be "virtual" as decided by the voters.
 
This is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes. Which party has the majority in Congress again? This is a done deal, Trump is going to be our president for at least the next 4 years.
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.
I think female electors should take a harder look at the issues, specifically affecting them.


Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.
I think female electors should take a harder look at the issues, specifically affecting them.
Such as...?
Which one has a vagina?
 
On the off chance faithless electors refuse to vote for Trump and he goes beneath the majority (270), the House holds a 'contingent election'.

(this based on the idea that they would just not vote,)

"In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner."

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Which brings up the question, who would be the third 'candidate' in said election?

Obviously Clinton and Trump would be the top 2, but would Cruz or Sanders be the third?

Your ideas?

If that happens, there will never be another Democratic president in the White House for decades. It will end any chances Democrats have of controlling the states or municipalities. The political ramifications for the Democratic party will spell doom.

Yeah, these people must have a political death wish.
 
Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of posters here that are under the impression that signing online petitions will convince Electors to either change their vote, switch their vote, or not vote at all.

without understanding what happens after


Let's em think that and then twist the knife as much as possible after the EC votes. They will have suffered two losses and it serves these delusional asshats
 
On the off chance faithless electors refuse to vote for Trump and he goes beneath the majority (270), the House holds a 'contingent election'.

(this based on the idea that they would just not vote,)

"In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner."

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Which brings up the question, who would be the third 'candidate' in said election?

Obviously Clinton and Trump would be the top 2, but would Cruz or Sanders be the third?

Your ideas?

Unless one of those faithless electors votes for someone else, it will be no one. Only the top three EV contenders can be selected by the house. If only two candidates have EV there will only be two choices for the House

Yes that's the way I understand it. If, say, McMullin were to get one EV from a Utah elector, he would then be the third choice presented to the House. That is in fact what 3Ps are usually going for, and no doubt why some elector will bolt and vote for somebody who wasn't in contention -- to give them a shot in the House in the event no one hits 270. That's also what the"Dixiecrats" were trying to do in 1948 -- to siphon off enough EVs that both Truman and Dewey would be denied 270 and it would go to the House.

In 1960, fifteen electors in three states voted for Sen. Harry Byrd --- who wasn't even a candidate.
 
his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

:lol: No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top