Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Supreme Court to Decide the Future of the Electoral College
The-Conversation
By The Conversation
Published 4 years ago on
June 23, 2020

Share

Many Americans are surprised to learn that in U.S. presidential elections, the members of the Electoral College do not necessarily have to pick the candidate the voters in their state favored.

Or do they?

Morgan Marietta

Analysis

The Conversation

This month the Supreme Court will rule on the independent powers of electors, which will determine the meaning of the Electoral College in contemporary American politics.

An American Invention

The constitutional system of presidential selection is a set of uneasy compromises worked out at the very end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

The framers could not decide whether the choice of a president should be made by Congress or the states.

They also could not agree whether all states should have equal power in the selection, or if more populous states should have more say.

And they didn’t agree whether a state’s choice should be made by local elites (state legislators) or the masses (all of the voters).

In the end, the Committee on Unfinished Parts created a unique governmental structure that compromised on all of these debates. Unlike many contemporary Americans, the founders were comfortable with such compromises and immediately approved the new mechanism of presidential selection.

A small number of citizens called electors would meet in each state to decide the presidency collectively. Congress would enter the picture only if the electors did not reach a majority decision. The number of electors would equal the number of senators and representatives in Congress, which means that small states had greater power than their population would suggest, but still not as much as big states.

State legislatures could use their discretion about how to choose electors, which could result in elitist or popular forms of democracy in different states. Pennsylvania held a popular election in the very first presidential contest, allowing voters to choose electors aligned with the emerging parties. Some state legislatures appointed electors themselves until the mid-1800s.

As Americans embraced popular democracy in the decades following the founding, most people began to expect a majority vote in the state would determine its choice. In most states, the legislature gives the winning party the duty of choosing electors – who typically are party members who have pledged to vote for their party’s presidential candidate during a public meeting of the Electoral College in December.

When that happens, the state’s Electoral College votes go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. But it is possible for an elector to vote for someone else – which is why there is a case before the Supreme Court.

What Are ‘Faithless Electors’?

When Donald Trump won enough states in November 2016 to be elected the 45th U.S. president, opponents turned to the Electoral College as a last attempt to alter the election’s result. This became known as the Hamilton Electors movement.

Alexander Hamilton.(John Trumbull/Wikimedia Commons)

Alexander Hamilton was an advocate of elitist democracy who did not trust ordinary people to vote. He also thought highly of the Electoral College. In Federalist 68, he asserted that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

His reason was that the selection of the president would reflect only “the sense of the people,” but truly be made by “a small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass.”

In Hamilton’s view, these electors would hold the necessary “information and discernment,” while the masses would likely vote for a president with the “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.”

The Hamilton Electors’ explicit goal in 2016 was to convince enough electors to cast “faithless” votes – against the election results of their state – to switch the outcome. Several celebrities, including Martin Sheen, who played the president of the U.S. in “The West Wing,” urged Republican electors to be “an American hero” by blocking Donald Trump from winning.

David Mulinix, an elector in Hawaii in 2016, cast his ballot for Bernie Sanders, though Hillary Clinton won his state. (AP Photo/Cathy Bussewitz)

Trump’s official tally in the Electoral College was 304 to Hillary Clinton’s 227. That doesn’t add up to 538 – the total number of electoral votes – because seven electors were unfaithful to their state’s popular decisions. Two Republican electors went their own ways, casting their ballots for John Kasich and Ron Paul. Five Clinton electors also refused to vote with their states’ majorities: Three chose former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one each chose Sen. Bernie Sanders and Native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle.

Those seven electors were not enough to change the outcome. But what if they had been?

Most of the country’s electors did as these six, from Nevada, did in 2016, and voted for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, regardless of whom they had personally backed. (AP Photo/Scott Sonner)

What Do Faithless Electors Mean for 2020?

The outcome in 2020 may be closer than in 2016. If Joe Biden wins a few states that Hillary Clinton did not – say Pennsylvania and Arizona – but Trump holds on to the rest of his 2016 states, the Electoral College outcome will be remarkably close. By my count, it could be 274 to 264 in the Electoral College. If it is that close, even a small number of faithless electors could change the outcome.

Election Day is always the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, but the day the Electoral College votes is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

If Americans believe on Nov. 3, 2020, that one person has been elected the next president, but find out on Dec. 14 that it is going to be a different person, it is difficult to predict what the public will think – or do.

Faithless Electors at the Supreme Court

Even before the 2016 election, some states had tried to limit the discretion of electors. Colorado passed a law that allowed faithless electors to be replaced immediately with an alternate, and Washington imposed a US$1,000 fine for electors who voted differently from the public at large. Two faithless electors – Michael Baca and Peter Chiafalo – challenged the ability of states to restrict their discretion under the Constitution.

The debate at the court is about whether the U.S. still has elements of an elite democracy that cannot be altered by individual states, or if state legislatures can create a popular democracy within their borders by making electors simply registrars of the popular will – even though the constitutional text (and Alexander Hamilton’s plans) may suggest that electors should make their decisions freely.

What the Hamilton Electors are saying is that the old idea of an occasional block to the popular will is still useful. In their view, the rise of populism has made the old elitism important again.

Washington electors and state officials pose after meeting on Dec. 19, 2016. Four of the state’s 12 electors cast their votes for someone other than state popular-vote winner Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

The supporters of faithless electors are taking a position grounded in the intent of the framers, the usually conservative theory known as originalism.

But that interpretation of originalism runs up against another one: The founders let states decide how to pick electors.

These two originalist positions divide between a higher regard for the original purpose of electors and the original means of selecting and regulating them.

On the other hand, the usual liberal position – living constitutionalism – is clear. It supports the idea that the U.S. has evolved into a popular democracy regardless of the original intent. Binding electors to the vote of the state is simply the mechanism to achieve the representative elections that most Americans believe the country already has.

If the states win, they will be allowed to set the future rules for how electors may vote. If enough states bind electors, then the election will proceed as the public expects. But if the faithless electors win, the 2020 election results may be unclear far beyond Election Day.

About the Author

Morgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

RELATED TOPICS:

DON'T MISS

North Korean Leader Says Past Diplomacy Only Confirmed US Hostility

DON'T MISS

Democrats Strike Deal to Get More Biden Judges Confirmed Before Congress Adjourns

DON'T MISS

Newsom Gaslights on Potential Gas Price Hikes in Fresno Visit

DON'T MISS

Automakers to Trump: Please Require Us to Sell Electric Vehicles

DON'T MISS

President Biden Welcomes 2024 NBA Champion Boston Celtics to White House

DON'T MISS

Ohtani Makes History With 3rd MVP, Judge Claims 2nd AL Honor

DON'T MISS

Trump Chooses Pam Bondi for Attorney General Pick After Gaetz Withdraws

DON'T MISS

Average Rate on a 30-Year Mortgage in the US Rises to Highest Level Since July

DON'T MISS

Cutting in Line? American Airlines’ New Boarding Tech Might Stop You at Now Over 100 Airports

DON'T MISS

MLB Will Test Robot Umpires at 13 Spring Training Ballparks Hosting 19 Teams

UP NEXT

How Trump Can Earn a Place in History That He Did Not Expect

UP NEXT

Demography Drives Destiny and Right Now California Is Losing

UP NEXT

Defining Deviancy Down. And Down. And Down.

UP NEXT

How Three Trump Policy Decrees Could Affect California Farmers

UP NEXT

Donald Trump Is Already Starting to Fail

UP NEXT

I Can’t Wait for Matt Gaetz’s Confirmation Hearings

UP NEXT

Let the Games Begin: 2026 Campaign for CA Governor Looms

UP NEXT

Why Trump’s Deportations Will Drive Up Your Grocery Bill

UP NEXT

Dems Still Dominate California, but Their Voters Have Drifted to the Right

UP NEXT

If You Thought Trump Wasn’t Serious About Deportations, Look at His First Appointments

Automakers to Trump: Please Require Us to Sell Electric Vehicles

2 hours ago

President Biden Welcomes 2024 NBA Champion Boston Celtics to White House

2 hours ago

Ohtani Makes History With 3rd MVP, Judge Claims 2nd AL Honor

2 hours ago

Trump Chooses Pam Bondi for Attorney General Pick After Gaetz Withdraws

3 hours ago

Average Rate on a 30-Year Mortgage in the US Rises to Highest Level Since July

3 hours ago

Cutting in Line? American Airlines’ New Boarding Tech Might Stop You at Now Over 100 Airports

3 hours ago

MLB Will Test Robot Umpires at 13 Spring Training Ballparks Hosting 19 Teams

3 hours ago

Death Toll in Gaza From Israel-Hamas War Passes 44,000, Palestinian Officials Say

4 hours ago

Jussie Smollett’s Conviction in 2019 Attack on Himself Is Overturned

4 hours ago

Fresno Council Lowers Speed Limits on Friant and Audubon

4 hours ago

North Korean Leader Says Past Diplomacy Only Confirmed US Hostility

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his past negotiations with the United States only confirmed Washington’s ...

29 minutes ago

29 minutes ago

North Korean Leader Says Past Diplomacy Only Confirmed US Hostility

35 minutes ago

Democrats Strike Deal to Get More Biden Judges Confirmed Before Congress Adjourns

1 hour ago

Newsom Gaslights on Potential Gas Price Hikes in Fresno Visit

President Joe Biden with Mary Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, at the Detroit Auto Show, Sept. 14, 2022. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to erase the Biden administration’s tailpipe rules designed to get carmakers to produce electric vehicles, but most U.S. automakers want to keep them. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)
2 hours ago

Automakers to Trump: Please Require Us to Sell Electric Vehicles

2 hours ago

President Biden Welcomes 2024 NBA Champion Boston Celtics to White House

2 hours ago

Ohtani Makes History With 3rd MVP, Judge Claims 2nd AL Honor

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally at First Horizon Coliseum, Saturday, Nov. 2, 2024, in Greensboro, NC. (AP/Alex Brandon)
3 hours ago

Trump Chooses Pam Bondi for Attorney General Pick After Gaetz Withdraws

3 hours ago

Average Rate on a 30-Year Mortgage in the US Rises to Highest Level Since July

Help continue the work that gets you the news that matters most.

Search

Send this to a friend