The Glade 4.0

I was reading this story in the Seattle times about an Elector who said he would likely not vote for Hillary Clinton as he preferred Bernie Sanders.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... r-clinton/

Note that this story was written on Nov 5th, before the states voters elected Hillary Clinton.

This prompted me to do a little reading about the electoral process, and what obligations the Electors are under to cast their vote for the candidate their state voted for. What I think I found is that, they aren't!

Apparently, it's still technically possible that on Dec 19th, when the 'real' election happens, the electoral college could defect enough votes to get Hillary elected. There is a term for this, called "Faithless Electors". Apparently the last time this happened (2004), an elector refused to vote for John Kerry, and instead voted for his running mate (John Edwards). In this case though, it was mostly symbolic, as Bush already had enough electoral votes to win.

So, what prevents these electors from being bribed, threatened, or just personally corrupting the election process? It seems like there is a high potential for shennanigans here, even though it happens very rarely.

In AZ, the I think the state parties selected their electoral candidates, a responsibility they probably don't just pass off to some FNG.

_________________
The Dude abides.

IMO, gerrymandering is inherently corrupt.

I really like this guys take on the whole thing.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

He's also got this one:



Identical to alternative vote when only one winner is chosen, but ideal for multi-winner elections.

I've seen that guy's stuff before.

It's fantastic.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Those videos are pretty fun (I'd never seen them before)...

But... what do they have to do with my question? :p

The process is outlined here:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... l#congress



...and in this section is the really long winded answer to your question:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... ns.html#15

tldr;


Congress is the body that ultimately certifies the vote and can decide to overrule unfaithful electors, which would possibly make the media happy... they could make a mint off that drama and it would make Florida 2000 look easy. Or, congress could close the doors and not let the unwashed participate at all. Good times would be had by all.

Given that the entire congress will be controlled by the republicans, it's not really likely they'll give it to the democrats.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The electors are all people with an established history in the Republican party. They owe their own political future to their continued good offices. In addition to the (generally trivial) legal penalties for the faithless, you can forget getting elected to city council or school board or whatever after that.

The #Nevertrumpers with "principle" at this point are a few conservative journalist holdouts who have no responsibility. Sanders and Warren have already bent the knee, Republicans will too. The glittering prize of ending the threat of liberal justices is within reach, and Congress will be able to get what it wants.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahh, ok.. This makes sense...

Thanks