We haven’t seen the last of “unfaithful” electors

The attempt to deny Donald Trump his victory by persuading/coercing electors to go against the vote in their states was always destined to fail. And fail it did. As John notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states.

Nonetheless, the left’s march on the Electoral College is corrosive. The six unfaithful electors had no impact on the outcome of this election, but one can easily imagine an election is which that number could deny victory to a candidate.

In future elections, moreover, we may well see the number of unfaithful electors grow. An unfaithful elector is someone who puts his or her personal opinion above the opinion of the voters in his or her state. This, as one elector put it, is like playing king (or at least kingmaker).

Therefore, it is tempting, especially if the election is close enough that being unfaithful can alter the outcome. I think we’re likely to see more electors going off on their own in the future, especially now that the left has attempted to “normalize” this.

If unfaithful electors swing an election, there’s no telling which party will benefit. Thus, once things quiet down, it may be possible to muster a bipartisan consensus against unfaithful electors. However, I suspect that Democrats will hold out for doing away with the Electoral College, which will (and should) be unacceptable to Republicans.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.