Faithless electors, and all that jazz

[Zymologist]

And I don't even like jazz. (see left)

Ok, I've been wondering a few things about this, and rather than wasting a bunch of time on Google, I've decided to waste a bunch of time writing a post here. So the way I understand it is basically this: electors theoretically have the power to go counter to the will of their states' voters, and have even done so in the past. However, the results of a US election have never been altered because of this.

So...what would happen if, say, a bunch of states that went to Trump had electors going for Clinton? I mean, as far as I can tell, it's technically constitutional, although highly irregular. There would be outcry, certainly. What would happen next?

There seems to be little to no expectation of such a thing actually happening. For example, both Clinton and Obama have said something along the lines of "Trump will be our next president."

So I guess I'm wondering: what are the actual chances of the electoral college voting in Clinton, rather than Trump? Is it so unlikely as to be practically impossible? If it did happen, what kind of election-legal recourse would Trump supporters have (if any)? That last question isn't really phrased quite right, but I'll just leave it be for now.

[Jaecp]

Zero

The Faithless electors are all still Republicans. What would happen is that they'd vote for someone like Evan McMullin, deny trump 270 votes, and then the House of representatives has to pick from like the.... top 3 vote getters, so we'd have President Gary Johnson or something if they didn't vote Trump in.

As for legal recourse, none. Hamilton, in one of the federalist papers, says that the electors can vote to prevent demagoguery from taking over the country or something. The EC is, although it hasn't been needed to be used as such before now, a check upon the masses electing a demagogue. The electors, likewise, are not supposed to vote someone in who is in violation of the constitution and Trump is, unless he does what all the other past presidents have done, put his assets into a blind trust. Until he does so then he is, as he has already been, in violation of the Emolument clause. Interesting article on that here that was written by a leading Constitution law professor at Harvard and cites a previous article that contains an interview with Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics counsel for GWB. Said interview happened after WaPo Reported that included this little gem

Source: WaPo Article

In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.

© Copyright Original Source

This is in direct violation of the constitution and, outside of the Partisan nature of all this, the electors duty to the constitution above all else means that on Dec 19 they should not vote into office a man who is not only willing to, but actually using the office of the Presidency as a way to make a buck. That's not America. That's not what the President is supposed to do and its against the constitution for damn good reasons.

[Mountain Man]

Is Trump forcing people to stay at his hotel? If not then your accusation carries no weight. The quote from the Asian gentleman is a cultural curiosity but not an indictment of Trump.

I read the Bloomberg article, and he doesn't really make a clear case one way or the other and basically says that it's up to other people to figure out.

[Sparko]

I believe most states have laws against faithless electors.