Understanding Faithless Electors: Consequences and the Constitutional Framework
What happens if an elector does not vote for their pledged candidate in the Electoral College? This question, often met with a response, That's called a faithless elector and a lot of things can happen, none of them good, delves into various legal, constitutional, and practical implications.
Consequences of Being a Faithless Elector
A faithless elector is an elector who votes in ways that do not align with their pre-election pledges or the popular vote of their state. The consequences can be severe, including both legal penalties and, most importantly, the potential for broader political and constitutional implications.
Legal Penalties
Several states have enacted laws and penalties for faithless electors. These laws can range from fines to imprisonment. For example:
Some states impose fines on electors who vote contrary to their pledges. Others may even sentence the elector to jail.For instance, in New Hampshire, an elector who votes faithlessly can be fined up to $1,000. In Utah, a faithless elector can be fined up to $1,000 or be imprisoned for up to six months, or both.
Impact on the Election Process
Firstly, every EC (Electoral College) member loses their position as soon as they vote, regardless of the nature of the vote. Secondly, an elector who does not vote as expected is unlikely to be chosen as an elector again.
The Constitutional Framework and the Role of Electors
To fully understand issues surrounding faithless electors, it's crucial to examine the constitutional framework:
The U.S. Constitution and Popular Vote
It's important to note that the U.S. Constitution does not provide any constitutional right or privilege to vote to We the People. In fact:
The Constitution neither grants nor guarantees any such right or privilege. It does not require or mention any popular vote for officers in the federal government. The role of the states' legislatures was intended to elect presidents or appoint electors, not the people. States were not even mentioned in the constitutional framework as a means for the people to play an active role or part in the process.These fundamental points highlight that the popular vote is not the primary mechanism for electing the president and vice president in the United States. Instead, it is the electors who officially elect the president and vice president.
Historical Context and Popular Vote
The concept of a popular vote for the president and vice president as we know it today did not exist until 1872. Prior to this, electors were not bound by the popular vote and could even vote for candidates who were not on the ballot.
Today, only 14 states have laws requiring electors to vote for their pledged candidate and the removal of faithless electors. In the District of Columbia and the other 36 states, electors can vote for anyone they want, including candidates who were not on the ballot. However, their votes must still be counted for the person they voted for.
Implications of a Faithless Elector's Vote
Due to the winner-take-all system in most states, the loss of even a small number of electors can significantly alter the outcome of the election. For example, in the 2024 election, if 12.5 million registered voters in Texas participate and vote in an absurdly high turnout, with 6.26 million voting for Trump and 6.24 million for Harris, Trump would still receive all 40 of the Texas Electoral votes. This is far from representative of the popular vote and highlights the potential for significant manipulation through faithless electors.
Thus, while the myth that We the People elect the president and vice president persists, the reality is far more complex and often less representative of the popular will.
Conclusion
The issue of faithless electors is deeply rooted in the constitutional framework and the complex electoral process. Understanding both the legal and constitutional implications is critical to grasping the full picture of how the Electoral College operates and how it can be manipulated.