Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that has direct relation to the Electoral College and how these voters will vote in the future. The argument is around what is called “faithless electors” and could have major implications on future US elections. These “faithless electors” are members of the Electoral College who refuse to vote with their designated candidate. Since its inception, there have been 167 faithless electors in the Electoral College.
Some of these were historical votes, but some were recent as well. For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the state of Washington in the election, but did not win all of the state’s electoral votes. CNN describes this in how 4 votes were cast for someone other than Clinton. Also in 2016, an elector attempted to defect from Clinton to elect John Kasich from Ohio. This elector was replaced with someone who held to the Clinton vote as was required. Several court cases appeared in the wake of this latest activity in 2016 and now are coming before the Supreme Court.
States are responsible for choosing the electors, but many do not have requirements that are placed on the electors. This leads to the case of the faithless elector. Many have argued that the case of the Electoral College adds confusion to the election process. There have been a lot of advocates that have come out in favor of the popular vote model. This Supreme Court case could help move the election in either direction depending on its outcome.
In his arguments to the Supreme Court, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig told the Supreme Court that states should not be allowed to punish faithless electors for voting their conscience. If he were to win this argument, electors would not be required to vote for the popular vote winner in the state, but could do what they wish. This would mean that electors would no longer have to pledge to do the will of the voters. These electors could simply vote however they personally desire.
Over 26 states and Washington DC require that their elector vote for the winner of the popular vote through oaths and fines. Others have interesting methods of assigning votes. But the argument before the Supreme Court is that these voters should not be punished and should be free to vote for who they wish. This is just as big of an issue as eliminating the Electoral College. This would take away the ability for the vote to matter to everyone. I know that many will argue that failing to use a popular vote accomplishes this, but that is not the case.
The Electoral College was designed to give a voice to each individual state. The founding fathers knew that a popular vote would allow large municipalities to have rule over smaller rural areas. To defend against this, the Electoral College was created. So a presidential candidate cannot simply ignore rural states and only focus on large cities. Once you understand how the Electoral College is constructed, you can easily see how it lends a voice to each locality.
Electors are decided by the voters. An elector is assigned to each congressional seat with a minimum of 3 per state. Every state except for Maine and Nebraska has a winner take all policy and rarely do these two states split their votes. The electors take the wishes of the voters of their state to the Electoral College vote, casting their vote for President and Vice President. It truly does represent the will of the people. But the Democrats and the left would not like you to think this way.
Removing the requirement for the electors to be faithful would be a bad idea. This would lead to pointless elections every 4 years in November. No one would be voting for the people’s choice, but rather for their own choice. Rather than a President being chosen by the people, they would be chosen by a few people, 538 to be exact. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case next month with a verdict expected sometime in July.
You can contact JD through the Liberty Loft website or by Twitter. If you like the content you find on the Liberty Loft, consider donating to support conservative speech.