I don't mean to triple post, but apparently I'm wrong about this. Faithless electors did change the result of the Vice Presidential race in 1836 apparently. The more you know! :D
Yet another reminder that I'm just a kid pulling stuff out of my butt as I go along. :/
he's saying you're being hyperbolic. He has a point, but I agree with the sentiment that there isn't much reason at the moment to swing the votes, especially considering the potential backlash from people who are already convinced that the political process is rigged.
in any case, I don't think the electors would actually swing the result. For starters, that sort of thing is completely unprecedented-- we've had several elections where the EC victor lost the popular vote, but that hasn't ever been enough to sway the electors to my knowledge (electors have been swayed by stupider reasons though-- how we put up with this stuff is beyond me). The founders may have intended for the electors to act in a situation like this (kinda sad how little faith they had in the common man), but I'm unsure if I'd like it if they actually went through with it.
I don't know nearly enough about this sort of thing to have an informed opinion, but I'd like to believe that Trump would have to do something extremely dubious between now and next month for them to even consider it. I think if anyone switches their vote it'll have less to do with integrity or concern with his fitness for office and more to do with his popularity. I think his support would need to drop considerably before anyone entertained the idea of snatching the office away from him, and that doesn't seem like it'll happen any time soon.
ah, gotcha. I didn't catch the date on there. You don't believe any electors will try anything this time, do you?
deletedover 8 years
maryland tried to take measures under gov. o'malley to sidestep the electoral college in 2007 to award its 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote. the winner-take-all system is not necessarily infallible.
