Some people are now discussing the possibility of faithless electors giving Trump the presidency. Considering that the most likely scenario of a Biden victory (I'm not saying that a Biden victory is likely) is 270 Biden to 268 Trump, which would require one faithless elector for a tie which would give the presidency to Trump.
In general, I'd rather not give the democrats any arguments of Trump being illegitimate, but they'll say that no matter what happens and a faithless elector giving Trump the presidency would probably create the most salt we will ever see.
That's the most frustrating thing about the MSDNC coverup. Trump will win the election bigly, but we'll never know HOW bigly. They robbed us of the chance to show how much of a mandate he really has.
Is faithless electors even possible, or probable? I remember in 2016 the dems were crying to faithless electors to not vote for Trump. Of course that didn’t happen
There were several in 2016, but not only were there not enough to overturn the election, they actually hurt Clinton in the end. There were two that didn't vote for Trump and five that didn't vote for Clinton. It was one of the least faithful elections in history, I believe.
Here's a full breakdown from Wikipedia:
One Clinton elector in Colorado attempted to vote for John Kasich. The single vote was ruled invalid by Colorado state law, the elector was dismissed, and an alternative elector was sworn in who voted for Clinton.
One Clinton elector in Minnesota voted for Bernie Sanders as president and Tulsi Gabbard as vice president; his votes were discarded and he was replaced by an alternate who voted for Clinton.
One Clinton elector in Maine voted for Bernie Sanders; this vote was invalidated as "improper" and the elector subsequently voted for Clinton.
Four Clinton electors in Washington did not vote for Clinton (three votes went to Colin Powell, and one to Faith Spotted Eagle).
One Trump elector in Georgia resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.
Two Trump electors in Texas did not vote for Trump (one vote went to John Kasich, one to Ron Paul); one elector did not vote for Pence and instead voted for Carly Fiorina for vice-president; a third resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.
One Clinton elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders.
I think the reason, according to historians, is because it took a while for everyone to assemble in one place and cast their final votes (which I'm pretty sure is why the elector vote is a month after the election). News traveled slowly at the time but it was possible that you might learn something of the President-Elect during the period after the election that might make him illegitimate in your eyes. I think that's the general justification for why the system exists, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Some people are now discussing the possibility of faithless electors giving Trump the presidency. Considering that the most likely scenario of a Biden victory (I'm not saying that a Biden victory is likely) is 270 Biden to 268 Trump, which would require one faithless elector for a tie which would give the presidency to Trump.
In general, I'd rather not give the democrats any arguments of Trump being illegitimate, but they'll say that no matter what happens and a faithless elector giving Trump the presidency would probably create the most salt we will ever see.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/05/faithless-electors-could-keep-trump-in-the-white-house/
Trump is winning AZ so it doesn't really matter
Trump team expects to take PA by ~5000 votes and they have been fairly accurate.
But they said 40,000 yesterday morning. This can't be right
Rope
I want to know how much Trump beat Biden by. I would'nt be surprised if it was +5 points most states.
That's the most frustrating thing about the MSDNC coverup. Trump will win the election bigly, but we'll never know HOW bigly. They robbed us of the chance to show how much of a mandate he really has.
I guess its possible (pretty sure one flipped last time), but hoping for it is not a plan, its the absence of one.
Oh of course it's not a plan, much like most things right now it's sheer speculation. But having hope for a worst case scenario is not a bad idea.
Is faithless electors even possible, or probable? I remember in 2016 the dems were crying to faithless electors to not vote for Trump. Of course that didn’t happen
There were several in 2016, but not only were there not enough to overturn the election, they actually hurt Clinton in the end. There were two that didn't vote for Trump and five that didn't vote for Clinton. It was one of the least faithful elections in history, I believe. Here's a full breakdown from Wikipedia:
One Clinton elector in Colorado attempted to vote for John Kasich. The single vote was ruled invalid by Colorado state law, the elector was dismissed, and an alternative elector was sworn in who voted for Clinton.
One Clinton elector in Minnesota voted for Bernie Sanders as president and Tulsi Gabbard as vice president; his votes were discarded and he was replaced by an alternate who voted for Clinton.
One Clinton elector in Maine voted for Bernie Sanders; this vote was invalidated as "improper" and the elector subsequently voted for Clinton.
Four Clinton electors in Washington did not vote for Clinton (three votes went to Colin Powell, and one to Faith Spotted Eagle).
One Trump elector in Georgia resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.
Two Trump electors in Texas did not vote for Trump (one vote went to John Kasich, one to Ron Paul); one elector did not vote for Pence and instead voted for Carly Fiorina for vice-president; a third resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.
One Clinton elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders.
Thanks for this info + clarification! So it’s possible, although some were just replaced and made the vote they were sent to make
Is this why the founding fathers developed faithless electors? Or did that come later?
I think the reason, according to historians, is because it took a while for everyone to assemble in one place and cast their final votes (which I'm pretty sure is why the elector vote is a month after the election). News traveled slowly at the time but it was possible that you might learn something of the President-Elect during the period after the election that might make him illegitimate in your eyes. I think that's the general justification for why the system exists, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Later. In the founders' view, ALL electors were "faithless". They were meant to be a deliberative body that met and decided on the president freely.
The article says it would have to be approved by congress, so I have little faith in this route
It depends on if we win the House. If nobody gets 270 electors than every state gets a single vote.