Talk:Faithless elector/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggested alterations

Comment. This is an excellent list. I would suggest some alterations.

1) In 1984, the AP story on the meeting of the Presidential Electors in Illinois reported that one Elector attempted to vote for Geraldine Ferraro for VP. The remaining Electors were not impressed. They took a second vote, and the offending Elector voted for Bush as expected.

2) In 1948, two men appeared on both the Democratic and States Rights electoral tickets. One of them voted for Truman, the other for Thurmond. Parks therefore was not exactly a faithless Elector. NYT 12/14/1948.

3) In 1912, the Republican Party appointed N.M. Butler as the stand-in candidate to receive the party's electoral votes before the Electors met. They therefore should not be considered faithless. NYT 1/5/1913

4) In 1808, the Presidential Electors in OH did not support VP Clinton, who continnued his race for President as an Independent Republican after the Caucus. They should be considered faithless in the VP race. Chronicler3 18:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Crud. I read this back on February 16, but was distracted before I could respond, and never came back.

1) Can you find a cite for this? If so, please add this item to the article.

2) Parks was pledged to Truman and Barkley and didn't vote for them, so by definition he was faithless. The real question is whether the other individual who was on both slates was faithless. If he had pledged to vote for Thurmond and Wright only if he were elected on the Dixiecrat slate, then he would be OK, but if he had pledged to vote for Thurmond and Wright full stop, then he, too, was faithless.

3) From the second graf:

On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for president or vice president in a different manner than that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represent. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote.

In other words, under the article's definition, an elector pledged to a dead candidate has no choice but to be faithless. This is why Greeley's electors in 1872 are considered to be faithless (except for the three who actually voted for him and had their votes discarded).

4) In 1808, both Vermont's and Ohio's electors voted for Langdon as Vice President. The outstanding question is: were they pledged to George Clinton as VP? I'm under the general impression that they were not, but I'd love to see evidence otherwise.

— DLJessup (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(The following post was originally placed immediately after item 1 in the previous post.)

Response. I am still trying to learn how Wikipedia works, especially the encoding portion. Here is a clip from the AP article, which appeared in the Greensboro News & Record (NC newspaper) on 12/18/1984: "The Electors were also choosing a vice president, and Bush enjoyed the same landslide as Reagan. But in Springfield, Ill., it took two ballots to get a unanimous vote for Bush. On the first secret ballot, one of the 24 Electors chose Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, Mondale's running mate. After several minutes of confusion, a second ballot was taken that was unanimous for Bush." Chronicler3 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Excellent! And thank you! I went ahead and added the information to this article and to United States presidential election, 1984. Would it be possible to get the title of that AP article?

BTW, I moved your response from within my post to after my post. The following is just my personal opinion and in no way represents the official policy or recommendations of Wikipedia. I think it's a bad idea to embed responses within an original post à la Usenet or “fisking”. The problem is that, unlike Usenet, at any given time, there's only one current version of a talk page. This means that, while the response is usually perfectly clear, the original post becomes hard to read. This is not really a problem with a simple post-response; it's just that when the response gets an embedded response and that response gets an embedded response, the result is a hard-to-read chaos.

— DLJessup (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Faithless electors in 1884?

I came across a claim that Belva Ann Lockwood "petitioned Congress to count the vote of Indiana for Belva Lockwood on the grounds that the electoral college of that state had switched its vote from Cleveland to her, 'as it had an undisputed legal right to do.'" http://www.stanford.edu/group/WLHP/papers/lockwood.htm I don't know how much credibility the claim has. Schizombie 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing more, I'm loath to make any change to the article. Can anybody get more details?

— DLJessup (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to American Law by James W. Ely cites Babcock (author of the article at the link above) in their entry on Lockwood, but doesn't mention the electoral college. The claim of her winning those electoral votes also is printed in A Place at the Table: Struggles for Equality in America (2002) on page 77, which I found from an Amazon Search Inside This Book search. No citation provided on that page for the info. Also apparently claimed in Uncle John's Giant 10th Anniversay Bathroom Reader, without citation. WIll continue to look for more info. Schizombie 07:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Where could we look to find out more about this? Schizombie 00:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

So why do they have electors at all? Why not just have the number of electoral votes automatically go the the candidate winning the state? 24.68.180.163 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The decision on how to choose electors goes to the states. Not all states automatically give all electoral votes to the candidate winning the state. Some break it up. As it is, an elector is just something that "special" people get to hang on their wall to impress visitors. They serve no purpose as an email could get the job done faster. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So the state could decide in law how to apportion electoral votes, without using electors - which would eliminate faithless ones. There still seems to be no purpose other than a beaurocratic formality, which you seem to indicate is the case. 24.68.180.163 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The key reason that there are still electors is that it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electors. A constitutional amendment takes a lot of effort, and it would take a strong consensus as to the alternative—for example, there are quite a few proponents of direct election of the President and there are quite a few people who oppose direct election but still want the electoral college to be reformed.

The one time the electoral college has been revised, it took the shenanigans of the presidential election of 1800 to drive the American people to amend the Constitution—and it still almost didn't come off before the following election.

I don't see electors being eliminated until a “faithless elector” either decides or threatens to decide a presidential election. There are just so many other issues that people want to address.

— DLJessup (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be clear that "electors" and the "electoral college" are two different matters. We could get rid of electors and continue using the electoral college (sending votes to Washington DC in a FedEx envelope). We could get rid of the electoral college and send an elector to Washington DC to tell everyone vote counts for the state. So, the two should not be confused with one another. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why there are electors, and not just a certain number of votes sent someplace (like weighted voting), is historical. Peole vote for "respected community leaders", who meet someplace and vote for a President. Presidents were no supposed to be directly elected - and technically, they still aren't. There is also really no such thing as an electoral college - all the delegates from around the country don't meet together. State delegations meet, usually at the state capitol, and vote. There votes are transmitted to congress. - Matthew238 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we are a federal Republic; that's "why." 69.245.80.218 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It was originally conceived that the Electors would argue, debate, deal and compromise when necessary. It's interesting that the electors who do their job remain for the most part unknown (the Faceless Electors?) whereas these zealots, manipulators and clowns are immortalized. I think that the publicity is iumportant, however: U.S. voters should be reminded of the fact that their states' electoral votes may be beyond thair control unless they deal with the problem. WHPratt (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second. If the electors are supposed to argue, debate, deal, and compromise, then it follows that the 99% of electors who are pure party hacks and vote a straight party ticket are not doing their jobs. It is the 1% of electors who think "outside the box" and are willing to argue, deal, and compromise -- the ones you call "clowns" -- who are doing their jobs! Your final statement says that the freedom of electors is "a problem"; many Americans agree and many others disagree. But I agree with you that U.S. voters should be reminded of how their system actually works. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

They were separate statements, and that's why I added "originally" in addressing the writer's question. However, since those earliest elections, the expectancy of the voters is that the electors will do as they were instructed by the voters, and that was the point of my comment. I don't think that my labels were unfair. By "zealots" I meant those who vote for the guy they think their party should have nominated (e.g., 1976); by "manipulators" I mean those who'd vote for an opposing party's candidate (e.g., 1968); and by "clowns" I mean those who'd vote for someone who wasn't even considered a Presdidential candidate (e.g., 1956). Obviously, there is some overlap as well. WHPratt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

Does this only apply to the US?

"A faithless elector is a member of the United States Electoral College who "

Since there are Electoral colleges other than the US Presidential Electoral college, couldn't the term apply to members of those electoral colleges as well? If this is a term that is solely used in the US but can apply to a member of any electoral college, the phrasing should be changed.

Originally, this article claimed that a faithless elector is a member of an electoral college. It was changed to the United States electoral college with the claim that only electors in the U.S. could be faithless. There was no evidence to back that claim, but I didn't care to push the issue. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's true that, as a purely semantic thing, anyone who "elects" someone while breaking "faith" with someone else could be called a "faithless elector"... or a "traitorous voter" or "untrustworthy vote-caster" or any other synonym. But as a technical term, "faithless elector" is used to refer to members of the United States electoral college who vote in certain ways. So we can have a Wikipedia article about faithless electors without discussing that hypothetically, there might be some other country somewhere in the world that also uses this term. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What states?

I want to know what states allow you to be a faithless elector. To me, this issue is so darn funny. :-) -Amit

The issue wouldn't be "which states allow a faithless elector" it, it would be "which states do not enforce the pledge of a faithless elector". That would be state-by-state election laws - very difficult to look all of them up. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet we're confident enough to give a number. Honestly, if we're able to say that (exactly) "Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors," we should be able to name them. If we can't, it calls into question the accuracy and verifiability of the 24 number. (Granted we might not be confident in saying that the other 26 *don't* have laws, as to do definitively so would require a thorough examination of the election code, but we can at least imply it by omission.) -- 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.63 (talk)

Minnesota, 2004

The statement "Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots, so unless one of the electors claims responsibility, it is unlikely that the identity of the faithless elector will ever be known." is quite incorrect. Anybody active in Minnesota politics knows who he was. He tried to change his vote as soon as they were announced, but the Secretary of State, a committed republican, refused to allow that -- thereby depriving John Kerry of one vote in the Electoral College. 207.191.150.48 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a citation for that, add it to the article. MetaBohemian (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Total number of faithless electors artificially inflated

“1912 election: Republican vice presidential candidate James S. Sherman died before the election. Eight Republican electors had pledged their votes to him but voted for Nicholas Murray Butler instead.” REBUTTAL: The Republican electors became unpledged when Sherman died, and could vote for whoever they pleased.

“1896 election: The Democratic Party and the People’s Party both ran William Jennings Bryan as their presidential candidate, but ran different candidates for Vice President. The Democratic Party nominated Arthur Sewall and the People’s Party nominated Thomas Watson. The People’s Party won 31 electoral votes but four of those electors voted with the Democratic ticket, supporting Bryan as President and Sewall as Vice President.” REBUTTAL: Because of arrangements in various states, some Populist electors were pledged to vote for the Democratic candidate, Sewall, while some Democratic electors were pledged to vote for the Populist nominee, Watson. All of the electors voted as pledged, although not all for their party's candidate.

“1892 election: In Oregon, three electors voted for Democrat Grover Cleveland, and one for the third-party Populist candidate. All four were pledged to Republican President Benjamin Harrison, who failed to get reelected” REBUTTAL: The Republicans won the most votes, but failed to get a majority of the Oregon vote. One of the Populist electors ran both on his ticket and Cleveland's, and had enough combined Democratic and Populist votes to be elected. Oregon therefore elected three Republican electors and one Populist, and all voted as pledged.

“1872 election: 63 electors for Horace Greeley changed their votes after Greeley's death. Greeley's remaining three electors cast their presidential votes for Greeley and had their votes discounted by Congress.” REBUTTAL: The Democratic electors became unpledged when Greeley died, and could vote for whoever they pleased. Nineteen Democratic electors failed to vote for their Vice-Presidential nominee, Benjamin Gratz Brown, for Vice-President. Eighteen of these electors, however, did vote for Gratz Brown for President.

“1836 election: The Democratic Party nominated Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes upon learning of the allegation that he had lived with an African-American woman. There was no majority in the Electoral College and the decision was deferred to the Senate, which supported Johnson as the Vice President.” REBUTTAL: The Virginia delegation walked out of the Democratic Convention when Johnson was nominated, and refused to pledge their states electors to him. The Virginia Democratic electors were therefore unpledged.

“1832 election: All 30 electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic vice presidential candidate Martin Van Buren, voting instead for William Wilkins.” REBUTTAL: William Wilkins was the nominee of the Pennsylvania Democratic convention, which occurred before the National Convention. The Pennsylvania Democratic electors were therefore pledged to Wilkins, not Van Buren.

“1828 election: Seven (of nine) electors from Georgia refused to vote for vice presidential candidate John Calhoun. All seven cast their vice presidential votes for William Smith instead.” REBUTTAL: Georgia was the only state which had two rival slates of electors pledged to Andrew Jackson in 1828. The losing slate was probably pledged to vote for John Calhoun for Vice-President, and the winning slate probably unpledged to vote for Calhoun.

“1808 election: Six electors from New York were pledged to vote for Democratic Republican James Madison as President and George Clinton as Vice President. Instead, they voted for Clinton to be President, with three voting for Madison as Vice President and the other three voting for James Monroe to be Vice President.” REBUTTAL: The electors selected by the New York legislature were the result of a fusion between Democratic-Republicans who were loyal to Madison and an independent faction of the party who supported George Clinton for President. The electors were therefore divided between Madison and Clinton. This was the same situation that existed in 1960, when Alabama electors were split between Kennedy and Byrd.65.94.61.180 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks would be nice NuclearWarfare (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Retitling of the Page

Perhaps we should change it to Faithless Electors (United States). That would more clearly clarify the article's purpose and get rid of the annoying necessity for the citation in the first line. NuclearWarfare (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If we can't find any other system with faithless electors, I suggest we just change it to "a member of the united states electoral college". BillMasen (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The College of Cardinals is an electoral college, I believe. Though I'm not sure if that works for this example. NuclearWarfare (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry I meant any other system with faithless electors. Corrected. As far as I know, all other electoral colleges either have electors who only represent themselves, or votes which are assigned automatically in accordance with the popular vote, rather than by flesh-and-blood electors. BillMasen (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College

Electoral College

Since the president is chosen by the Electoral College, why doesn't he/she "wine-and-dine" just those w/in the "college"? Why campaign throughout the U.S. if members of the Electoral College can vote for whom they want, and possibly be fined, but not likely.

Thanks for answering.

Imakatlvr (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Even disregarding how politically unpopular this would be, it probably wouldn't work. Electors are usually very loyal, dead-set party members. They are the exact opposite of swing voters; it is very hard to change their mind. Superm401 - Talk 09:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The President doesn't know who will be in the electoral college until after the election. For example, on my ballot, it did not state "I elect as President..." It said, "I select electors to cast a ballot for..." So, until the election was over, it was unknown who the electors in my state would be. It is possible (though truly impossible) for the Republicans to coerce the electors who are now known to switch their vote. -- kainaw™ 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in most states you are incorrect. In most states, each party chooses its electors well in advance. Then whichever party wins that state's popular vote in November is told that its already-selected electors will be the official electors of that state in December. Also, keep in mind that the electoral college does not meet centrally in December: the electors chosen in each state meet in that state. Picture a dozen lifetime Republican party-hacks meeting in a Republican headquarters, and imagine one of them considering voting for the Democrat instead -- they would be throwing their career away. Not gonna happen. That's why faithless electors are rare, and when they happen they are always for "protest votes" -- not for the other major party candidate! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And, since the parties can't enlist active office-holders as electors, they usually choose retired Senators, former Governors, and other contributors. Given that they're supposed to (or required to) just vote as did the voters, there's no excuse to apply any test beyond loyalty to the party. Look at 2000, when just two Republican defections could have broght on further constitutional chaos. WHPratt (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that the actual electors aren't known until after the election. In most cases, there is a set of Democrats and a set of Republicans. Until the election, it is not known which set will be the electors. So, assume the Democrats become the electors. It is not reasonable to assume that the Republicans can convert the electors. -- kainaw™ 21:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In pure theory it might not be "unreasonable", but in actual politics it simply doesn't happen. None of the faithless electors listed on this page switched to the other major party's candidate. And insofar as that's a danger, it's a danger that exists in all methods of democracy, not just with the American electoral college. Suppose that we had no EC and directly elected a president -- then someone who actually is pro-Republican could run as a Democrat, win, and then the day after he is inaugurated he could announce that he is now a Republican. Or suppose that a new Congress is elected with a majority of Republicans, and once they are sworn in, a block of the new congressmen announce that they are switching to the Democratic party and now the Democrats control congress. The bottom line is that any system of representative government depends on the idea that the vast majority of elected people (presidents, senators, representatives, and yes, Electors) will pretty much stick to what they promised to do. In fact, switches in Congress are more likely -- there have been times such as 1955 and 2001 when a single Senator switched parties and changed party control of the whole Senate. But this only happens with regard to a Senator who was already very close to the other party, and everyone knew that. Electors haven't done that, ever. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1968, the George Wallace third-party campaign hoped to win enough electors to deny either major party a majority. Wallace himself admitted in intereviews that he wouldn't benefit had the election gone to the House of Representatives, as his party would hold no seats there. Rather, he would instruct his electors to vote for Nixon or Humphrey based upon whichever of these made concessions to his platform. I believe that the American Independent Party electors all signed pledges to this effect. These would be challanged in the courts had they been invoked, of course. (Fascinating stuff. It was suggested that Nixon and Humphrey themselves pledge to cut Wallace out of any deal. Some New York spokesman suggested that his state's 43 electors could vote for their governor, Nelson Rockefeller, in the electoral college were that number sufficient to bump Wallace into fourth place and out of consideration by the House. Rockefeller, a moderate Republican could be a viable compromise candidate in a deadlock, or could at least wield influence in a House election.) WHPratt (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@Lawrence: "None of the faithless electors listed on this page switched to the other major party's candidate."? Not true, look at the 1796 elector (and three 1812 electors for VP election).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Kainaw, you're wrong. In every state, the slate of electors for each political party is determined ahead of time. (I've been an unsuccessful candidate for elector twice myself.) You are voting for a slate of specific electors, specific human beings with names and addresses, not for "a bunch of electors to be named later". --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

1912

I'm not sure if we can count 8 Republican electors from 1912 as "faithless". Butler oficially replaced Sherman as GOP Vice Presidential nominee, even if the late V.P. remained on ballot Darth Kalwejt (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Orphaned Electors" perhaps? WHPratt (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Punishment?

The article references that a number of states have punishments for faithless electors but doesn't say what they are. What are the punishments? Fines? Imprisonment? Expulsion from political parties? Firing squad? 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide View

Though I see the topic has been brought up before, I still think the article is too one-sided. The most famous use of the term might be in the United States presidential elections, but either this article should be broadened and generalized to include examples from other countries, or a new article should be written covering the broad subject. Examples from my own home country can be found at Dutch Senate election, 2007 and Dutch Senate election, 2011. - FakirNL (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at these articles and I cannot see any reference to electors. Electors in the US sense refers to the scheme of "indirect" election of the president. I have not heard of any other country which has such a scheme. As for the broader view, what additional breadth is contemplated? Enthusiast (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The article electoral college neutrally describes what an electoral college is and its role in indirect elections. It then gives some history and examples while the US situation is dealt with in more detail in the article Electoral College (United States). Though it could be that the exact term "faithless elector" is most often used for US presidential elections, it could be expected that in these other countries similar situations would arise. The Dutch senate is elected by the members of the States-Provincial, they are not called an "electoral college", but do function like this in the Dutch Senate elections. - FakirNL (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Semantics aside -- because I agree that WP:WINAD and that the term doesn't matter -- the idea of a "faithless elector" makes no sense unless the electoral body is structured around representatives (electors) pledging to vote a certain way in accordance with the wishes of the populace they represent. This is not the same thing as representative democracy, where the delegates ake no such pledge. Do electors in the NL make such a pledge, but sometimes violate it? If so, please explain these examples in the body of the article. If not, this article is likely about a US-only concept. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think politicians in the Netherlands have to take a pledge. The article electoral college says the system of an EC is used in several other nations though. For the moment I have not found other instances where electors have pledged and not delivered. Just not sure whether that proves that this system is only used in the US, or is just the result of the internet being biased. I have removed the tag for now. - FakirNL (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm very sensitive to the issue of US bias in Wikipedia, but I also can't see a rationale for talking about faithless electors in any system not involving a pledge by electors. Regarding the term electoral college, it may be used for one form of representative body in NL and another one, our quirky system with pledged electors, in the US. If there's not really a single universally accepted meaning of electoral college then it should be turned into a dab page since (WINAD) Wikipedia articles are supposed to be in 1:1 correspondence to concepts or entities, not words, phrases, or terms. But I'll let someone else fight that battle there. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

1800 election

The article currently states: New York elector Anthony Lispenard demanded to be able to cast a secret ballot, rather than a public one as state law required, apparently because he wanted to cast both of his votes for Aaron Burr instead of one each for Burr and Thomas Jefferson. This looks implausible to me, because Aaron Burr was a New York resident, and both then and now, the Constitution prohibited an elector from casting two votes for inhabitants of their same state. (An elector can vote for two residents of the same state, as long as it's not their own state; thus, for example, the 2004 Minnesota elector was allowed to vote for John Edwards twice, because Edwards was a North Carolina resident.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this sounds implausible. It was of course also forbidden to vote twice for the same candidate. The question is if either of those two rule breaks would have led to an invalidation of his second vote when cast secretly; presumably yes.

Also the next sentence ("voting for Burr and someone else would have (in theory) simply created a deadlock in the electoral college and a run-off vote, which Jefferson would have likely won.") is dubious - no run-off vote in the College was possible, the result of the actual deadlock was a decision by the House, which Jefferson had much difficulty winning. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Actually, our article on the 1800 election states that "A faithless elector in New York voted twice for Aaron Burr, but this violated electoral college rules and so the second vote was re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson." But no word on whether it was Lispenard... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

False statement

"Before being nominated the proposed nominees pledge to vote in the Electoral College, if they are elected, in favor of the nominating party's candidate for President and Vice President." Has anyone taken a minute to think about whether this statement makes sense or not? The US electoral college system is based on winners take all basis. For the most parts, the electors have to pledge to vote for whatever candidate in whatever party, who wins the most votes in their respective states. It's completely wrong to say they pledge to vote for their own party despite the population voting. It doesn't matter which party nominated them to become electors in the first place. Let say if the California population votes for Obama then it doesn't matter what party do the electors come from, they all have to vote for Obama (technically, they don't really have too, but if they don't uphold the pledge then they'll face bad consequences). 97.116.173.70 (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

California 1892?

The article on the 1892 presidential election in California claims that one faithless Democratic elector cast his vote for Harrison. Anybody know anything about this? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How many states?

The text of the article currently says 29 states have laws against faithless electors, and the map shows 26. Which is right? AJD (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

List of faithless electors order

Why is the list in reverse chronological order? (I.E. Why is it present to past). Shouldn't it be past to present? Vyselink (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

1912 election

I reverted an edit (see here) that was made as the edit itself was unhelpful. However, the point that the editor brought up makes sense. It says under the 1912-1968 section

8 – 1912 election: Republican vice presidential candidate James S. Sherman died before the election. Eight Republican electors had pledged their votes to him but voted for Nicholas Murray Butler instead.

Does this actually count as an example of faithless electors? Sherman had died, and it even says on Butler's page that "Butler was designated to receive the electoral votes that Sherman would have received." In that case, it appears that, unless someone can bring in a source stating that the 8 were officially recognized as being "faithless electors" by the government (or some other such source, you understand what I'm saying) that that should be deleted. Vyselink (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that those who voted for Nicholas Murray Butler were not "faithless electors." John Schoolcraft Sherman was dead. Several Wikipedia articles indicate that Butler was "designated" to receive Sherman's electoral votes. The articles do not indicate who made the designation. Presumably, it was the Republican National Committee. The information about Sherman-Butler does not belong in an article about faithless electors, and it should be removed.John Paul Parks (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

New Jersey in 1860 - erroneous inclusion.

Someone added the 4 electoral votes from New Jersey that were cast for Lincoln, because the "official returns" show Douglas getting a majority of NJ popular votes.

This is a misunderstanding of the actual result, which is oversimplified in the usual tabular report. The usual reported popular vote is 58,346 for Lincoln, 62,869 for Douglas. These numbers are total numbers of ballots cast. However, in New Jersey, voters did not vote for president, but for up to seven presidential electors. That is, the electors' names appeared on the ballot, and the voters marked the ballot seven times, once for each elector position. All electors were chosen "at-large", with the seven leading vote-getters chosen.

The Democrats of New Jersey were divided between supporters of Douglas and supporters of Breckinridge, and were competing for anti-Lincoln votes with the Constitutional Union party, which had nominated ex-Whig John Bell. After much intrigue, the three factions formed a "fusion ticket" of electors: three Democrats pledged to Douglas, two Democrats pledged to Breckinridge, and rwo CU men, pledged to Bell.

However, some New Jersey Douglas Democrats were unhappy with the deal. They distributed a ballot with only Douglas delegates. (In those days, parties rather than government printed up ballots.) About 4,000 to 5,000 of these all-Douglas ballots were cast. So three Douglas men got 58,000 fusion votes and 5,000 Douglas-only votes, putting them about 4,000 ahead of the Republicans, and were elected. The Breckinridge snd Bell electors got only the 58,000 fusion votes, putting them behind the Lincoln men who all got about 58,300. The four leading Lincoln men were elected also. (The "Douglas vote" given above includes both the fusion ballots and the Douglas-only ballots.)

Thus all seven NJ electors voted for the candidates they were pledged to, and none were unfaithful.

Here is a table of the vote, from the NY Times, 10/16/1860. (Not all states held elections on the first Tuesday in November.)


REPUBLICAN ---------------- FUSION
J.C. Hornblower...58,345 -- Wm. Cook.........62,801
Andrew K. Hay.....58,315 -- Joel Parker......62,387
Chas. E. Elmer....58,334 -- Theo. Runyon.....62,309
Edward W. Ivins...58,341 -- Peter D. Vroom...58,210
Geo. H. Brown.....58,335 -- Alexander Wurts..56,182
David Thompson....58,322 -- Edmund Brewer....57,801
Isaac W. Scudder..58,323 -- Silas Condit.....57,553


Cook, Parker, and Runyon were the Douglas electors; Hornblower, Elmer, Ivins, and Brown were the Lincoln electors who won.

faithless/pledged

- "A pledged elector can become a faithless elector only by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break."

This sentence is weird. Isn't the only kind of faithless elector a pledged elector that breaks their pledge?

If so, we should stop insinuate there are other kinds, and close the possibility of unpledged electors becoming faithless ones at all.

If not, please elaborate: what other kinds are there? Perhaps unpledged electors that put their vote outside their party are called "faithless" too?

Regardless, the current sentence structure is not very gracious and is not stringent - it opens more questions than it answers. CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1