Should States Outlaw “Faithless Electors”?

Unlike most other modern democratic nations, the United States does not have a direct-election system for choosing its executive. Instead, the Electoral College serves as an in-direct method through which the people of each state technically vote for a slate of electors who are pledged to the candidate of their party on election day, not the presidential candidates themselves. We are in this period of the election cycle where a president-elect (in this year’s case, Joseph R. Biden, Jr.) is the tentative winner. However, it will not be official until the Electoral College votes, and the U.S. Congress verifies the results of that body. While it is rare, there have been multiple examples of electors not voting for the candidate they were pledged to. Instead, these “faithless electors,” usually as an act of protest, cast their vote for a person who was not in the presidential race. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, an elector pledged to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton instead voted for Bernie Sanders. While many states have laws that either fine faithless electors, or even invalidate a faithless elector’s vote, some still do not.

Those who argue that states should outlaw faithless electors claim that they violate the spirit of our democratic institutions. They contend that whatever candidate wins the popular vote in a state should automatically be entitled to receiving the electors’ votes of that state. This side may also argue that each state is given broad authority over how to conduct its elections, and that outlawing faithless electors would not be unconstitutional.

Those who oppose outlawing faithless electors argue that the Electoral College was not originally intended to always reflect popular will. Instead, they argue that the Constitution only outlines how electors are to be appointed, and nothing else. Therefore, any attempt to compel electors to vote a certain way is a violation of free speech and the First Amendment. This side may also argue that electors are generally faithful to the candidate they are pledged to anyway, and that outlawing faithless electors may prevent them from using prudence. For example, a candidate they are pledged to may become severely physically incapacitated in-between Election Day and the day the Electoral College votes, which could justify an elector to vote for someone else.

So, what do you think? Should states outlaw “faithless electors?” Students can answer Yes, they should; No, they should not; or a nuanced answer in-between!

Note: Ideal Think the Vote responses include the following:

-Address the question asked in a thoughtful and meaningful manner

-Use cited facts and constitutional arguments when appropriate to support their answers

-Are expressed in cohesive sentences and are free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors

-They address counter-arguments and opposing concerns in a respectful manner

-They organize their answer in a manner that flows logically and reads clearly

Current Standings:
Yes: 75%
No: 25%
  • destini from Texas

    yes faithless electors should be outlawed , because the country doesn’t need any more people with little to no faith to do their job and protect our country

    0
    • Michael from Texas

      The unanimous decision in the “faithless elector” case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shift in the method of electing presidents toward a nationwide popular vote.

      [read less]

      The unanimous decision in the “faithless elector” case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shi…

      [read more]
      0
  • Gabriel from Kentucky

    We are a democratic nation. We pride ourselves on being full of liberty and freedom. We want to choose who leads our nation. This means faithless electors completely go against our beliefs. If we choose who leads the nation, but a faithless elector goes against our votes, he is trespassing on our right to elect a president. Although faithless electors have only a small chance to change the outcome of an election, it is possible that in an extremely close election, a faithless elector could change the outcome, and the future of our entire nation. It is terrifying to think that a faithless elector, and not our votes are causing that change.

    [read less]

    We are a democratic nation. We pride ourselves on being full of liberty and freedom. We want to choose who leads our nation. This means faithless elec…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexios from Alabama

    The core of democracy is that we are a democracy, by, for, and of the people. Consequently, it is vital that elections represent the wish of the people. The most significant aspect of a democracy is that the citizens are represented in government through their vote. Faithless voters remove the right of citizens to exercise this fundamental right. It is the constitutional duty of a delegate to vote in accordance with the people’s wishes. Violating this duty is a clear violation of their constitutional role and obstructs the core principle of our democracy, which holds the government as gaining its authority through the vote of the citizen.

    [read less]

    The core of democracy is that we are a democracy, by, for, and of the people. Consequently, it is vital that elections represent the wish of the peopl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lola from Oklahoma

    I believe states should ban faithless electors because there vote is unnecessary and takes time out the process of counting ballots. It’s pointless to vote on someone who is not in the running because its a waist of time and inconsiderate to the people counting ballots.

    [read less]

    I believe states should ban faithless electors because there vote is unnecessary and takes time out the process of counting ballots. It’s pointless to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Steven from Maryland

    I believe states should outlaw “faithless electors” because the electoral college has become controversial already. After Bush v Gore, there was the issue of whether people who be voted by the system or the citizens, although this is what the founders sought to do (electoral system) with hopes of distance keeping the power struggle at bay (back in the time without cellphones). However, we are the only country in the world that possess an electoral college system of voting, and “faithless electors”, in my opinion only make the system even more narrow.
    The world has become technological, and distance cannot keep people at bay, “faithless electors” should be outlawed by this alone. With more education and communication readily available, Jefferson’s view of the government changing to fit the needs of the current generation of people is and should continue to occur. The need for having people who are committed to the voice of the growing voting group, and permit them (the people) to be able to decide who will be elected instead of a single individual deciding for them. A single individual should not hold so much power to dictate the voice of thousands, and the presidency should be no different (hence of checks and balances). Thus my opinion on banning “faithless electors” on the basis of a growing controversy around it, in a time where technology has allowed a growing voters population to be able to make their voice heard even when their representatives decide not to.

    [read less]

    I believe states should outlaw “faithless electors” because the electoral college has become controversial already. After Bush v Gore, there was the i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kaitlyn from Indiana

    Faithless electors are a violation of democracy. Some states punish a faithless elector, even though they still count their vote. In my opinion, I do not think that a faithless elector should be able to be not punished. I think that they should vote for the person whom they stated that they would vote for. If people knew that they wouldn’t vote for who they said then they would most likely have a lot less support. This kind of uses the people for more of a platform to help themselves and what they want instead.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors are a violation of democracy. Some states punish a faithless elector, even though they still count their vote. In my opinion, I do …

    [read more]
    0
  • Isaac from Indiana

    In a democracy the people decide who should be their leaders. These faithless electors do violate that right. The electors who do vote according to the primary are the reason why the primaries still matter. If our election was strictly decided by the electoral college then we wouldn’t be a democracy at all and people would have no influence on our Presidential election.

    [read less]

    In a democracy the people decide who should be their leaders. These faithless electors do violate that right. The electors who do vote according to th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Morgan from Indiana

    I feel faithless voters violate the United State’s democracy by not voting per popular vote.

    0
  • Austin from Indiana

    Faithless electors are a violation of democracy because they can break the pledge of the highest vote getter in their state. In this 2020 election between Biden and Trump, the faithless electors could have changed the outcome of the election. If Biden won 3 states and Trump won 3 states, one faithless voter could have made it a tie for who would become president and the votes would have to move to the house of representatives for them to decide who won.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors are a violation of democracy because they can break the pledge of the highest vote getter in their state. In this 2020 election bet…

    [read more]
    0
  • Artem from Illinois

    Since the creation of the US, democracy and rule of the people have been the cornerstone of American society. However, to ensure fair representation of every state, the United States has come up with a unique voting system: electoral college. In essence, every state is assigned a number of points – “electoral votes” – depending on their population. With a few exceptions, such as Maine and Nebraska, every state runs on a winner-take-all basis: whoever wins the popular vote in the state gets all of the state’s electors. The candidate getting more than 270 electoral votes nationally wins. Reasonableness of the point-based system itself is debatable, but there is an undoubtedly broken process that takes place between the election by the people and the winner’s inauguration. When Americans vote for the presidential candidate, they are actually voting for people who will elect the president – the electoral college. Whatever party wins in a state sends their own electors to the electoral college meeting. The problem is that even though all electors are tied to a certain party, they technically do not have to vote for their vowed presidential candidate. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the electors from voting for whoever they want, and although some states have laws limiting the electors’ choices, many do not. If an elector wanted to go rogue and vote for a candidate that has already dropped out of the race, or for a candidate of a different party, or someone who is not seeking presidency, they can do so; in fact, seven electors did it in 2016. For instance, a Hawaiian elector voted for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton, and a Texas elector voted for Ron Paul (who did not even run for office that year) instead of Donald Trump. This, however, obviously endangers one of the key American values, democracy. When people vote for the president, it is assumed that the electors will keep their promises and vote for whoever the people choose in their state. But expectations are brittle, and assumptions of integrity alone are not enough to ensure a democratic process. We are surely lucky that the vast majority of the electors are conscientious people, but we cannot rely on pledges. It is unacceptable that only 33 states have laws deterring electors from voting for whoever they wish, and of those, few enforce them, with only 14 states voiding a faithless elector’s vote. Whether we keep the electoral college system or not, one thing is clear – if we want to preserve our democracy, votes need to be counted directly. It is true that electors have never reversed the results of an election; historically, very few became “faithless,” but should we wait until that changes? Over the last couple elections, it became clear that the United States voters are very polarized, and every election is extremely close. The possibility of a few electors going against the wishes of the democratic vote and thus deciding the election is becoming ever-higher, so the useless ceremony needs to be dropped. Millions of regular Americans, not half a thousand hand-picked members of the elite, must decide who will rule the country. We either need to have a central election commission that directly counts the electoral votes of each state or abolish the electoral college altogether and have the winner be decided by popular vote.

    [read less]

    Since the creation of the US, democracy and rule of the people have been the cornerstone of American society. However, to ensure fair representation o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sam from Oklahoma

    I do think that states should outlaw faithless electors because they ruin the spirit of the election.

    0
  • Annelise from Indiana

    Faithless electors, in my opinion, are a violation of democracy. They are allowed to break the pledge and vote for another candidate which seems to me unfair for the candidates and all of the voters. If it was a close election, just like the most recent one, it would’ve only taken one faithless Biden elector to cause the election at a tie. We could’ve had a different outcome that could’ve been crucial to who was going to run this country. It just seems unfair that faithless voters can break a pledge and vote for a different candidate than the one they were originally voting for.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors, in my opinion, are a violation of democracy. They are allowed to break the pledge and vote for another candidate which seems to me…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Indiana

    People who let nothing stop them, even direct laws from breaking a pledge and voting for another candidate are called faithless electors. The Supreme Court also made state penalties on unfaithful electors as legal in the last election Whether someone is pendalized depends on the state and whether they want to hold it against the voter and punish them. It’s a state by state case as to whether participating as a faithless voter is an acceptable form of free expression or a violation of democracy. I feel that people should be able to make their own decision even if they’re involved in the electoral college because they are still citizens and should be able to make their own choice like everyone else.

    [read less]

    People who let nothing stop them, even direct laws from breaking a pledge and voting for another candidate are called faithless electors. The Supreme…

    [read more]
    0
  • genevieve from Oklahoma

    Yes because the elector got chosen to represent their people but then turned on them and vote for the other candidate. The people aren’t getting represented correctly and the elector is betraying them. That should not be allowed.

    [read less]

    Yes because the elector got chosen to represent their people but then turned on them and vote for the other candidate. The people aren’t getting repre…

    [read more]
    0
  • laney from Missouri

    I think we should outlaw faithless electors because it basically just goes against what the electoral college is. In many many states, there are counties that could be 100% blue, but because of the others the state is red. If a region decides to go against this, they are making things so much more difficult! The state would then have to break up the electoral votes and add more work, when there are LOTS of other things they would be worrying about. A faithless elector also just isn’t fair. Even if a county/region doesn’t agree with the rest of the state, there shouldn’t be a choice for them to go against the vote. If the region is a faithless elector, all that’s really doing is going AGAINST the rules of voting and electoral college. What would make this ONE region special, why do they get to go against the rules but the rest of the regions in the United States don’t?

    [read less]

    I think we should outlaw faithless electors because it basically just goes against what the electoral college is. In many many states, there are count…

    [read more]
    0
  • Drew from Missouri

    I believe that the United States government should banish faithless electors. The reason why I believe this claim is it makes people believe their vote doesn’t matter. For example I had a talk with my mother last night, as much as i wanted her to she didn’t vote. She stated that the electoral college picks it anyways. This made me upset but i knew where she was coming from. When you hear about “faithless electors” it makes you feel like you don’t matter. Which is the furthest from the truth. Thank you for your time to read my claim.

    [read less]

    I believe that the United States government should banish faithless electors. The reason why I believe this claim is it makes people believe their vot…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emmaleigh from Indiana

    While some would argue that faithless electors are a form of free expression, I would argue that it is a complete violation of democracy. The job of the elector is to be the voice of who the people want for the position of president and vice president. By voting against who the people of the state they are representing, this is an unfaithful act that is suppressing the voices of the people in that state. This is allowing certain people to alter the votes of the state they represent based on their own desires and opinions. In my opinion this does not represent the form of democracy that our country was built on.

    [read less]

    While some would argue that faithless electors are a form of free expression, I would argue that it is a complete violation of democracy. The job of t…

    [read more]
    0
  • mia from Wisconsin

    Because we don’t need an elector that has no faith in anything, we want someone who can give us hope for new and better things not someone who puts everything down because they don’t believe in it.

    [read less]

    Because we don’t need an elector that has no faith in anything, we want someone who can give us hope for new and better things not someone who puts ev…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Indiana

    I believe states should outlaw faithless electors. I’m for the fact that if someone pledges to vote for a particular candidate, than they should vote for that candidate. Yes, people could argue that this goes against the First Amendment, which gives freedom of speech, but I feel it’s just right to vote for anyone you pledge to vote for. Also, outlawing faithless voters would make elections less complicated, and not as unofficial as, for example, this election already is.

    [read less]

    I believe states should outlaw faithless electors. I’m for the fact that if someone pledges to vote for a particular candidate, than they should vote …

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexis from Indiana

    I believe that faithless voting should be outlawed because I feel as though it does take away from our democracy. Because then it really isn’t us the people voting, it is our representatives making a decision, along with other representatives, for us. Plus not every representative knows what his or her people need. Some representatives don’t go to their home states enough to know what candidate would better cater to their states needs. I don’t believe another person should choose who I vote for. Because that’s really what is happening, it is just up to them to decided if they will consider our opinions.

    [read less]

    I believe that faithless voting should be outlawed because I feel as though it does take away from our democracy. Because then it really isn’t us the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Makenzie from Oklahoma

    States should outlaw faithless voters. If electors can vote for whomever they want, what is the point of having the popular vote? And what about our voice as people? If electors can vote for whomever they want, our voice as people are crushed and there is no point in having a popular vote if it will be overridden by one person.

    [read less]

    States should outlaw faithless voters. If electors can vote for whomever they want, what is the point of having the popular vote? And what about our v…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julia from Oklahoma

    Yes, states should outlaw faithless electors. We don’t need them. Votes are votes. If “Faithless Electors” were taken away, it should not change anything if the system is correct anyway. If they can’t be outlawed, I believe voters should at least vote for these electors so they know whose hands their vote is in.

    [read less]

    Yes, states should outlaw faithless electors. We don’t need them. Votes are votes. If “Faithless Electors” were taken away, it should not change anyth…

    [read more]
    0
  • Eleanor from Oklahoma

    The election should not be skewed by one person. Every vote counts, so having an elector practically throw their vote away when the entire state depends on them is infuriating. While there are some people who vote independent, there is not enough to change the results of the election. Having electors vote independent is useless and shouldn’t be allowed.

    [read less]

    The election should not be skewed by one person. Every vote counts, so having an elector practically throw their vote away when the entire state depen…

    [read more]
    0
  • Braden from Kentucky

    When US citizens vote on election day they are not actually voting for president, instead, their vote is taken into account, and the final decision is made by 538 people known as the electoral college. This group takes into account the popular vote for their state and votes accordingly… most of the time. In 1804 when the electoral college was created, America was a much different place with different needs. Each state was almost like a different country, and with very little widespread media, the federal government could not rely on their voters to be well informed. Many voters had little knowledge of who each candidate was because they came from different states, and the government did not want to rely completely on their population, so the electoral college was formed, however; with the advent of mass media and news at our fingertips, is there any need to be worried about an uninformed voter population?
    While the electoral college may have been a good idea in 1804, it does not hold together in modern-day politics. 538 people should not hold the power to control millions of other people’s well-placed votes. It is unfair to give this power to these people when they can change the votes of their population on a whim. As a democracy, every vote should count. Each person has the right to vote, and their votes should be heard. The people of the United States do not want to put their votes in the hands of 538 people, instead; these electors should be forced to fall in line with the popular vote of their state to accurately speak for the people they were CHOSEN to represent. In our modern society, it is unfair to assume that our population is unfit to vote with so much media and news available to citizens today. The electoral college was made because the voter population was untrustworthy, but in society today that is just not true.

    [read less]

    When US citizens vote on election day they are not actually voting for president, instead, their vote is taken into account, and the final decision is…

    [read more]
    0
  • Vincent from Kentucky

    States should be allowed to outlaw faithless electors in the system of the Electoral College. In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton argues that the President should be elected by people that are more familiar with all of the candidates and have a better idea of who the best choice is. With this principle, faithless electors are legal because the chosen electors are supposed to represent the states in order to make the more informed vote on the Presidency.
    The issue lies in the selection of these Electoral College voters. The Constitution forbids citizens that hold federal positions from participating in the Electoral College (Article II, Section I), so regular citizens that do not necessarily have any background in politics are the ones choosing the President. This becomes an issue because these electors do not need any qualifications to make their selection for President, so a more informed and opinionated citizen could have their vote nullified by a faithless elector that is less informed and less qualified to do so. This issue becomes massive when the number of votes is taken into account. With about 160,000,000 voters in 2020 (https://time.com/5907062/record-turnout-history/) and 538 electoral votes, each Electoral College member represents nearly 300,000 voting citizens. By allowing a faithless elector to follow their own will, they are asserting that their vote is more important than that of 300,000 people. That is undemocratic.

    [read less]

    States should be allowed to outlaw faithless electors in the system of the Electoral College. In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton argues that the Pre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jarrett from Kentucky

    Yes states should be allowed to outlaw faithless electors. Faithless electors essentially defeat the point of elections by dismissing the will of the people. If a state votes in favor of a Republican candidate for example then the Republican candidate should win that state. As American citizens electors should have the right to vote and should express that by going to voting stations. In terms of voting in an electoral role however, they should vote for who the state votes for and reflect who the people voted for. Every vote matters, the American people have seen this in elections such as Bush vs. Gore, JFK vs. Nixon, and Trump vs. Biden and so if a faithless elector is allowed to change their vote by their own will it could drastically change the outcome of the election that may reflect the particular elector who decides to vote against the states will, but not the people. Overall the concept of faithless electors defeats the overall purpose of their role as electors and the election in general.

    https://www.britannica.com/list/5-remarkably-close-us-presidential-elections
    https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/11/06/faithless-electors-outcome-2020-election-presidential-colorado/

    [read less]

    Yes states should be allowed to outlaw faithless electors. Faithless electors essentially defeat the point of elections by dismissing the will of the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Griffin from Kentucky

    Yes, states should have the ability to outlaw faithless electors. If, on the night of the election, the electoral college map were to show a record of 268-270, this decision could easily be decided upon by the electors. It would take one faithless elector to tie the score at 269 and a second elector to change the outcome of the election. As a result, the presidency would not reflect the projected winner on election night. In a way, this is unfair. The votes going in toward the presidency, while it does in terms of choosing electors, does not seem to reflect the national view in the case of faithless electors. If an elector decided to vote against the candidate that won that state’s popular vote, then they are, in a way, saying that they believe that they are more educated on the presidential candidates than that of everyone else within that certain state. Not only is this selfish and egotistical, but it can have a drastic effect on the nation. If there were to be an election that was as close as 268-270, all it would take is two people thinking they are smarter than the rest of their respective states to turn the tides. As a result, it would seem to a lot of people that their votes do not matter, but instead, the only votes that matter are the votes of the electors.

    [read less]

    Yes, states should have the ability to outlaw faithless electors. If, on the night of the election, the electoral college map were to show a record of…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cody from Kentucky

    Yes I think that states should outlaw faithless electors. Our democracy was founded on what they people voted for. To go out and vote and have some elector flip the popular vote is against what we fought for. Doesn’t matter if you’re republican or democrat whoever wins, wins. The electors chosen could lead completely different lives than those who vote.

    [read less]

    Yes I think that states should outlaw faithless electors. Our democracy was founded on what they people voted for. To go out and vote and have some el…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gavin from Kentucky

    Yes, states should most definitely outlaw faithless electors. The electoral college system is already a fundamentally flawed system but as it currently stands that is unlikely to change any time soon. It has its advantages and disadvantages but that is a discussion for another day. Any system that allows faithless electors is overall unjust and undermines democracy. While our country may not have been founded as the most democratic nation it has become a major democratic force in today’s world and should show the same level of fairness to all people and faithless electors prevent this. According to the 2019 democracy index, the United States currently stands as one of the few industrialized western nations in the world categorized as a flawed democracy. For a country that has made so many vast claims about defending democracy and the rights of the people this is quite insane for it to be classified as a flawed democracy the reasoning behind this classification however does somewhat stem from the allowance of faithless electors. In American politics where faithless electors are allowed the people technically have no say over who becomes the president since the electoral college controls who actually becomes president. If faithless electors are not punished they could all simply vote for whoever they wish. This means that even if a candidate received over 99% of the popular vote and was clearly the choice of the people this candidate could still fail and another candidate could take their place and rule the nation. This is not democracy, this gives way to the possibility of tyranny. Faithless electors must be punished and stopped if not then we might as well just hand over our right to vote. Therefore in order to preserve our democracy, we must outlaw faithless electors.

    [read less]

    Yes, states should most definitely outlaw faithless electors. The electoral college system is already a fundamentally flawed system but as it currentl…

    [read more]
    0
  • James from Kentucky

    Of the many undemocratic principles found in the electoral college, one of this biggest is the idea of faithless electors. The fact that our system of determining the president is dependent on just a few people who can change their vote against the popular will of the state deeply undermines our standing as a democratic nation. In modern America, Americans expect that their vote should be counted and that whomever they elect through the electoral college should become president. However, because electors can vote for whoever they want, they can go against their states and the American people by voting for someone their state did not choose to win. Not only have faithless electors gone against who their people voted for, but they have also voted for people not even running for president. In 2004, a Minnesota elector casted their presidential ballot for “John Ewards”, which was a misspelling of John Kerry’s running mate. The fact that something as ridiculous and stupid as this happened shows the dangers of faithless electors. Faithless electors could change the outcome of elections if enough of them agree or if the election is close. Furthermore, faithless electors could be subjected to bribes, intimidation, and other forms of manipulation so that they can change their vote.
    Those in favor of Faithless electors may argue that they are necessary because they are what the founding fathers intended. The founding fathers did not want a direct election as they were afraid of the people electing someone unfit for office. While this could be a reasonable concern, it deeply undermines the democratic principles this country takes pride in. If the founding fathers came back today, they would be stunned by the fact that most Americans can vote. The founding fathers did not envision a free democracy, but rather a benevolent oligarchy. Originally, only white, landowning males were allowed to vote. However, as ideas shifted, America began to view voting not as a privilege for the elite, but rather as a right of the people. Faithless electors, and the electoral college in general, are an antiquated relic of when democracy was only for the few and the powerful. Faithless electors are a danger to everything America takes pride in. Faithless electors need to be outlawed in order to live up to the democratic ideas we hold dear.

    [read less]

    Of the many undemocratic principles found in the electoral college, one of this biggest is the idea of faithless electors. The fact that our system of…

    [read more]
    0
  • William from Oklahoma

    Candidates should win states because the people in those states wanted them to win, not because they convinced electors to vote for them. Some faithless electors vote for whoever they want and aren’t keeping the interests of their state’s citizens in mind. That isn’t very fair.

    [read less]

    Candidates should win states because the people in those states wanted them to win, not because they convinced electors to vote for them. Some faithle…

    [read more]
    0
  • Reid from Oklahoma

    A faithless elector does not represent its state’s voters fairly. In each state, the candidate with the most votes should receive all of the electoral votes from that state. Since every electoral vote matters, a single faithless voter could change the outcome of the election. Their vote does not necessarily have to be invalidated but they should receive some kind of punishment.

    [read less]

    A faithless elector does not represent its state’s voters fairly. In each state, the candidate with the most votes should receive all of the electoral…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emma from Oklahoma

    It can mess with presidential elections when you dont vote for one of the final two candidates

    0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    States should outlaw “faithless electors”. The electors have a duty to represent their state and the people in that state and that includes voting for who they feel is the best candidate for president. The ultimate goal of the Electoral College is to elect the person that is best for the job of the President. If enough people vote for one candidate that it comes out as the majority, then enough people feel that the candidate is best suited for the job and therefore the electors should reflect this opinion in their votes. When the Constitution was written, many of the middle-class people were not well-versed in politics and therefore the Electoral College was put in place to assist with electing a good candidate for President. Since the Constitution was written, more and more people took an interest in politics and what makes a good candidate. The public is much more well-versed on politics than when the Constitution was written and therefore the Electoral College electors are able to trust the votes of the public more.

    [read less]

    States should outlaw “faithless electors”. The electors have a duty to represent their state and the people in that state and that includes voting…

    [read more]
    0
  • Molly from Kentucky

    Faithless electors undermine the will of the people and discredit the popular vote of a state. Many argue that faithless electors vote the way they do out of a desire to place country over party; however, it is not the elector’s job to do so. Although the constitution protects the right to vote and free speech, there are no constitutional provisions to protect the discretion of faithless electors, as they were not intended to act as voting individuals but rather a representation of a state’s legislative branch members (a combination of Senate seats and House of Representatives seats). In another perspective, faithless electors may vote with discretion if the popular vote candidate is incapacitated between election day and when the electoral college votes are cast. If this occurs, there should be legislation in place to protect that specific act of discretion. However, this event has occurred so few and inbetween that discretion on base off incapacitation has rarely, if ever, been exercised before on a large and impactful scale. The electoral college already protects American democracy from the uninformed will of a major demographic, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for unrestricted faithless electors to discredit the vote of those they represent. Furthermore, electors are chosen by members of a state’s party. They can be susceptible to pressure and bribes, which in turn would coerce them to vote in a way that does not align with popular vote. Therefore, it is in direct violation of an individual’s right to vote and free speech is an elector acts faithlessly, as an individual’s vote should be represented under their electors.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors undermine the will of the people and discredit the popular vote of a state. Many argue that faithless electors vote the way they do…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kentucky

    Yes because, faithless out the people’s voice and that is not right. The U.S is a democratic nation and is founded on the people’s voice and that is not right.

    0
  • Daniel from New York

    Faithless voters are like the people who break pinky-promises. On a much larger scale, this idea is the same. The term faithless is derived from two parts: faith and less. With the suffix “-less,” this automatically suggests that someone who is faithless is not going to be good. This is no exception. Faithless electors are people who have pledged to vote for a particular candidate, but in the end, do not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidate for whom they had pledged to vote (definition from Wikipedia). By breaking this pledge, electors are demolishing the trust and power that has been given to them, and instilling a demonizing policy of elitism. By allowing electors to vote “freely” or (more accurately) “roguely,” the representative democracy standing in the United States is dwindling in power.
    Although the Constitution doesn’t require electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states, this is not only extremely unethical, but outdated. With the Constitution’s ever-changing improvements to fit the mold of today’s society, there is no reason why the issue of the Electoral College can’t be rectified. On the matter of the Constitution, many people on the other side of the debate may argue that by prohibiting “faithless electors,” we are silencing their first amendment right to free speech. The pseudo-logic behind this way of thinking can be easily knocked down. One of the major “first amendment limitations” are accounts of when free speech has infringed on another’s Constitutional right. Voting is a Constitutional right granted to every United States citizen by 18 years old, and by invalidating the states’ popular vote, as well as your pledge, is, fundamentally, unconstitutional. If this country was built on the emotional and impulsive behavior of electors, the United States would be nothing like we are today. Using the Constitution’s centuries-old policies to dictate modern-day society is not only outdated, it is unjust to the Americans who have put their trust in their states’ electors to vote accurately and faithfully.
    Another aspect that some debaters may vote “no” is that “faithless electors rarely sway the final decision of the presidential election.” Although, thankfully, this has been the case, it is a very contradictory idea, similar to the viewpoint on the popular vote in the United States. One hundred and fifty million Americans voted in the 2020 Presidential Election, so why would one vote matter? Why is it so important to let every single person vote? The answer is the same for both the popular vote as well as the electoral votes: every vote matters. The significance may pale in comparison, and ultimately have little to no effect, the sense of unity and power each voter holds is immeasurable. Not only must each registered voter vote, but they should be voting faithfully. By voting faithlessly, electors betray their word, the people they represent, as well as the country. There must be action taken to prohibit faithless electors.

    [read less]

    Faithless voters are like the people who break pinky-promises. On a much larger scale, this idea is the same. The term faithless is derived from two p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Divya from Oklahoma

    Yes, I do think states should outlaw faithless electors. The people in the states vote for their desired candidate, and the electors have a responsibility to accurately represent the population by casting their vote not just to represent themselves but a bigger population of people. If an elector votes faithlessly, then that group of people may not be represented or have a say in choosing a leader. That may cause some uproars and conspiracies. It may not also give an accurate projection of whom the people want to be their leader. The electors are also going against their pledge by hypocritically voting for someone else. Although there is nothing in the Constitution taking specific measures against this behavior, it is unethical to continue or allow people to faithlessly vote without consequences. I am sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they had nothing in their minds thinking that there would ever be such a fraud as faithless electors. Faithless electors should be against the law as they jeopardize the American people’s rights and ability to express themselves.

    [read less]

    Yes, I do think states should outlaw faithless electors. The people in the states vote for their desired candidate, and the electors have a responsibi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Teresa from Kentucky

    Faithless electors should be outlawed because the winner of the popular vote in the state should automatically win that state’s electors’ votes. They are put into place to represent the people of their state, so if they vote for a different candidate than who they pledged to, they are not representing the people of their state. If electors are allowed to choose who to vote for regardless of the popular vote then it is taking away the voice of the people and many will feel as though their vote doesn’t matter. This goes against the democratic policies of the United States. Faithless electors should be outlawed because they do not represent the people and are taking away their voice by voting for the candidate that the majority of people don’t want to win.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors should be outlawed because the winner of the popular vote in the state should automatically win that state’s electors’ votes. They …

    [read more]
    0
  • Rachel from Kentucky

    “Faithless Electors” should be outlawed by the states. The elector should vote for the candidate that they have pledged to. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state should receive all of the electoral college votes for that state. Those who are part of the electoral college should be reliable and honest voters. The electors should be required to vote for the candidate of the party that is popular in that state. It would not be unconstitutional to outlaw faithless electors in the states. Outlawing faithless electors would allow for a more fair and just election to take place. Faithless electors violate the spirit of our country’s democratic institutions. Electors of the electoral college have a duty to this country as citizens and voters. They should carry out their duty with loyalty and respect to our nation and the candidates who are running for president.

    [read less]

    “Faithless Electors” should be outlawed by the states. The elector should vote for the candidate that they have pledged to. The candidate who wins…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caleb from Kentucky

    Our country should have only one election. This means that the country should hold just the popular election and not the electoral college election. Every single person has a right for their voice to be heard. Therefore, the electoral college and faithless electors shouldn’t even exist. With the electoral college existing however, the electors have a right to vote for the candidate they desire to win. No one should be fined for their voice being heard. It is just a little ridiculous we hold an election throughout the nation that practically doesn’t even matter in the end.

    [read less]

    Our country should have only one election. This means that the country should hold just the popular election and not the electoral college election. E…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joseph from Kentucky

    I think that faithless electors should be outlawed. The framers of the Constitution put the electoral college in place with the electors having the power to vote for whichever candidate they saw fit regardless of the popular vote because it made sense at the time. Without nationwide media coverage, there was no way that citizens across the nation could know who and candidate was and what their policies were. Because the general public was unable to make an informed decision simply due to lack of easy access to information the idea of the electoral college made sense. Electors who understood who the candidates were and could make educated decisions for their state based on this. That way if a majority of voters in a state voted for a candidate who didn’t have the right skills to perform well as president, an elector could overrule the popular vote for the sake of what was best for the country. But in 2020 this system is no longer necessary. With the availability of widespread news coverage and instant access to information on the internet, anyone can be informed about who the potential candidates are and what their goals are. People can be deeply informed about national news in ways the framers of the Constitution never could have imagined. So while the idea of faithless electors made sense at the time, it no longer makes sense in our increasingly interconnected digital world.

    [read less]

    I think that faithless electors should be outlawed. The framers of the Constitution put the electoral college in place with the electors having the po…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mackenzie from Indiana

    States should outlaw faithless electors within the electoral college. These one or two rogue votes will almost never cause a significant difference in any election, and therefore they are somewhat pointless to begin with. Faithless voters also go against the state’s popular vote. If the people have cast their ballots and a candidate wins a state popular vote expecting to get X number of electoral college votes, the candidate should receive all X of those votes. The electors should be responsible to vote for their people and represent their state’s wishes accurately, as their deviance from the state’s popular vote likely won’t make a difference in the election. It will only upset voters who now feel misrepresented in the electoral college. Therefore, states should abolish faithless electors in order to adhere more to their state population’s wishes in the popular vote.

    [read less]

    States should outlaw faithless electors within the electoral college. These one or two rogue votes will almost never cause a significant difference in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Abby from Kentucky

    Yes states should outlaw faithless electors. Oftentimes going against the statewide vote can be illegal and they may be fined. In order to avoid this situation from occurring we could just outlaw faithless electors. If people pledge to vote for one person and then vote for another are lying because they had pledged to vote for this certain person. There is not usually that huge of a number of faithless electors in the presidential elections anyways so outlawing them would not have negative benefits. It would just unify and secure the votes from each state even more. I do not think it would necessarily be a bad thing to get rid of our outlaw faithless electors because they do not have that much of an impact anyways.

    [read less]

    Yes states should outlaw faithless electors. Oftentimes going against the statewide vote can be illegal and they may be fined. In order to avoid this …

    [read more]
    0
  • McKenzie from Kentucky

    Yes, The electors are picked to vote reflecting the popular vote for each state. If the popular vote in the state is for the republicans, then the electors should vote for the republican candidate. In kentucky, for example, 8 people choose which candidate to vote for. Technically, this means that each individual vote, that is not an elector, does not matter. If I were to go vote, it technically would not count because, those 8 people get the final say. These faithless electors can be viewed as traitors and unconstitutional. The president should never be chosen because of about 600 people, but should be chosen because of who the true American people vote for. It is unconstitutional to take the vote of each American voter away and put the country´s fate into a handful of people. It is corrupt: for example in 2016, Donald Trump won the most votes in California than any other state combined, however did not win the electoral votes. Why does voting matter if our votes do not count? Why does voting matter if the system is corrupt?

    [read less]

    Yes, The electors are picked to vote reflecting the popular vote for each state. If the popular vote in the state is for the republicans, then the ele…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    Because the people of America vote indirectly for the presidential election through the electoral college, the way that the electors perform is very important. To begin, the electoral college is crucial because if it were not in use, then the coasts would decide almost every national election because of how populated they are compared to the center of the US. So, based on the winner take all system that states that whoever wins in the state should take all of the electoral votes, this is the only way for peoples’ voices to be heard. If the elector “goes rogue” and does not vote along party lines or what the state’s popular vote is, then they are diminishing and take away meaning from the votes of the people. If the electors can vote for whoever they want, then there is really no point in the people of a state voting because the electors will not care anyway. Therefore, there should be stronger limitations on the abilities and liberties given to the electoral college in order to protect the rights and voices of the voting public.

    [read less]

    Because the people of America vote indirectly for the presidential election through the electoral college, the way that the electors perform is very i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Parker from Oregon

    One of the many ideas that came into the constitution when it was drafted was the philosophy that the people were not responsible enough to vote in the right and not the wrong. While this is certainly proven, the most prominent example being that of Nazi Germany, one must consider whether the voting power of electors is akin to that of a wise parent who protects their child from harm or the cruel will of personal profit. To be short, it is probably to some degree both, but when the will of the people is subjugated it is of only noble inhibition that the method of power in place is both secure and righteous. This is the question we must understand: are those who are in such positions of authroity more suited to that privilage than the people. I will say without denial that there is valid argument for both, for I have seen terror on the streets in the name of goodness but I have also seen wild and unjustifiable corruption in the government. Upon the unjust, wrong, and untimely, death of George Floyd we saw people of all races and kinds lining the streets, locked in arm, not to say ‘death to the U.S.’ but to proclaim their love for each other and to humanity; then we also saw people who used the act to burn innocent stores many of whose owners I could only assume indeed too love each other and humanity. Yet on the other side there was North Carolina who within the past few elections had gerrymandered their Black voters. By what means am I to trust them? if the political structure is so definitively inclined then by what means am I to believe anything they say. Political authority is not the same as political righteousness. Did we not learn this in the Revolution? but some might argue, ‘Get to know your electors before you judge them,’ and to that I say, “Exactly.” I have no way of telling whether my government is being honest and fair. Then again, I am not in the place to ask them for if I did everyone would have that right and then no elector would feel safe to vote even for the people. Then there’s the catch, that the recent election has shown the country so divided that a significant number of states were won by insignificant majorities, yet the votes still go for the victor yes?

    [read less]

    One of the many ideas that came into the constitution when it was drafted was the philosophy that the people were not responsible enough to vote in th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sofiia from Oklahoma

    Faithless electors should be outlawed because they infringe on the spirit of our democratic institutions. I dispute that whatever candidate wins the popular vote in a state should automatically be entitled to receiving the electors’ votes of that state. The Electoral College serves as a method through which the people of each state technically vote for a slate of electors who are pledged to the candidate of their party on election day, not the presidential candidates themselves. When citizens vote, they vote for their voices to be represented through a person that has similar views. If their vote does not get expressed the way that people were expecting, it causes frustration projected at the electors. I reason that outlawing faithless electors would not be unconstitutional, but it would be a legitimate debate.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors should be outlawed because they infringe on the spirit of our democratic institutions. I dispute that whatever candidate wins the p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caroline from Oklahoma

    There are a couple of reasons I believe faithless voters should be outled. First, we are supposed to trust our electoral voters that they will help our voices be heard but that’s not happening when they change their original vote. Second, the electoral voters have a big role in our country and one little mistake could ruin their reputation. Lastly, people might not want to vote if they know that they are just going to get betrayed by their electoral voters.

    [read less]

    There are a couple of reasons I believe faithless voters should be outled. First, we are supposed to trust our electoral voters that they will help ou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zoe from Texas

    The purpose of electors is to make an informed decision using their governmental and political knowledge about which candidate would benefit the people most. Their ability to vote how they like protects the people from voting for a candidate who may not be in their favor or truly help them in the long term. Without electors, our country would be a direct democracy instead of a representative democracy.

    [read less]

    The purpose of electors is to make an informed decision using their governmental and political knowledge about which candidate would benefit the peopl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Vincent from North Carolina

    Faithless electors should not be outlawed as they may be the last safeguard for the election and can especially be helpful in preventing any voter fraud from influencing the outcome of the election, especially the presidential one in 2020. The electors that are chosen will know of the people’s actual opinions and views, instead of relying on the rigged machine tallies and false reporting from the opposing political party as well as the corrupt poll workers who actively undermine the election.
    The electors are single individuals that are chosen by the state legislatures and these electors are chosen by both parties in a bipartisan legislature, allowing the elector-chosens can use their knowledge to vote against the candidate that they had pledged to vote for when they realize the possibility of fraud and their reputation and status of how the people of the states will view them if they found out they had gone along with the party of dominance at the time and refuse to challenge the votes.
    On another note, most electors stay loyal to their pledge of candidate, especially if the election is proven to be a truthful and transparent one, with the counting and certifying ending on Election Night, not a few days after it, when there are plenty of opportunities to overturn the actual legal election results. In the 2020 elections, there have been multiple reports, statements, and witnesses of voting frauds. There has also been circumstantial evidence as well as reasonable thinking that can help “prove” these accusations to be truthful. If these details can help prove or reasonably sound convincing enough, the electors can help award the election to the incumbent president, who won through legal ballots instead of fraudulent ones. While many electors will remain faithful to their party, they can realize the extent of the fraud and vote against their party wishes, putting the legal elected president into office.
    In the end, if the candidate that is chosen won by a landslide (+10-12 million votes), the faithless electors won’t contribute much to the overturning of the election, as the general population had desired for the candidate who “won” to become the president. While most electors remain faithful to the party that they have registered in, a few register on the opposite party due to the fact that they are biased toward people of the opposite party in the districts (such as a Democratic dominant county will “discriminate” against certain privileges of a Republican). These electors that are chosen can help upset the fraudulent election results and can even place the rightfully candidate in office.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors should not be outlawed as they may be the last safeguard for the election and can especially be helpful in preventing any voter fra…

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from Oklahoma

    I believe that electors should be allowed to be faithless under certain circumstances. An elector should be allowed to not vote for who they were pledged for, if, in the time between when the popular vote is taken and when the electors cast their votes, the candidate they were pledged to has shown behavior unbecoming of a president (i.e. being blatantly racist or discriminatory) or has suffered injury enough to significantly impact their ability to lead the country. Under any other circumstances, electors should have to vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

    [read less]

    I believe that electors should be allowed to be faithless under certain circumstances. An elector should be allowed to not vote for who they were ple…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dylan from Missouri

    This is a topic that can be argued equally on both sides. I think that they shouldn’t be outlawed for a one reason. The first reason is that every person matters. Even if they don’t go with the majority votes.

    [read less]

    This is a topic that can be argued equally on both sides. I think that they shouldn’t be outlawed for a one reason. The first reason is that every per…

    [read more]
    0
  • Krystyne from Indiana

    Faithless electors can change situations for better or worse. I believe we should further look into the amount of times a faithless elector has caused problems and how many times a faithless elector has solved problems, then make a decision.

    [read less]

    Faithless electors can change situations for better or worse. I believe we should further look into the amount of times a faithless elector has caused…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hannah from Kentucky

    I do not think states should outlaw faithless electors for one reason: it goes against the Constitution. We have stuck to our nation’s original plan to this point, so why would we change it now if it continues to work? The problem with sticking to the popular vote is that many people vote based on things like personality instead of how the candidate would run our country. Electors are chosen for a specific reason, so we should trust that they are voting for their candidate for an informed and logical reason. Sadly, not everyone that goes out to vote does their research and educates themselves. This is why the electoral college is so important.

    [read less]

    I do not think states should outlaw faithless electors for one reason: it goes against the Constitution. We have stuck to our nation’s original plan…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mike from Kentucky

    States should not be able to outlaw faithless electors because it would go against the structure intended by the framers of the US Constitution. The electoral college effectively prevents the people from electing someone not fit to be president while still maintaining the voice of the people. If faithless electors are able to be outlawed, the electoral college and its ability to function will be eliminated because the election process would essentially become a true democracy. The framers of the Constitution purposefully instituted the electoral college to prevent this. Faithless electors and the electoral college infringe on our democracy, but this is beneficial to the state of the country because the framers never intended for the United States to be a true democracy. Additionally, states should not be able to outlaw faithless electors because states should not be able to influence how a citizen votes. This could potentially lead to state officials taking advantage of their ability to outlaw faithless electors and infringe on one’s freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. While it would be more of a concern if electors often voted against the popular vote of the people, this is not the case since this rarely ever happens or has a significant impact on elections.

    [read less]

    States should not be able to outlaw faithless electors because it would go against the structure intended by the framers of the US Constitution. The e…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carson from Kentucky

    States should not be able to outlaw faithless electors because the intent of the electoral college when it was first conceived was to allow electors to be able to vote for who they want to vote for. The electors were not meant to always reflect the popular vote of the state that they come from. They were meant to vote for the person who they thought was best fit for the job. Faithless electors have never made up enough of the votes to overturn the results of an election, either. Taking away someone’s vote is a violation of their right to vote and their right to protest the results of the election. If the state has a faithless elector, they probably should have looked into the person more to make sure that they would vote for the candidate elected by the state. Banning faithless electors could be the first step on a path to banning people from exercising some of the rights outlined in the constitution. Forcing someone to vote a certain way is something that this country is against with the first amendment, and allowing states to do so is a violation of this right.

    [read less]

    States should not be able to outlaw faithless electors because the intent of the electoral college when it was first conceived was to allow electors t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kathryn from Kentucky

    States can not outlaw “faithless electors” without causing the Electoral College to become obsolete, which, in turn, would violate the Constitution. The Electoral College’s purpose is to protect the country against the uninformed masses. This protection comes in the form of faithless electors who choose the best candidate over the popular candidate. Without people who are willing and able to vote for the best candidate rather than the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, the Electoral College would not possess the ability to protect the United States from the uninformed public. In addition, banning “faithless electors” would violate the electors’ right to freedom of speech. Without the ability to vote against the popular candidate, they do not have the ability to voice their dissent from the state’s popular vote. While some may argue that “faithless electors” harm the nation’s democratic spirit, they must take the Electoral College into consideration as a whole. The Electoral College itself lacks this democratic spirit since a voter from a state with a small population holds more sway over the election than a voter from a state with a larger population. However, the United States constitution upholds this violation of democracy because it is a republic that chooses systems that protect from the uneducated masses. Although the states are given broad authority over conducting their electors, the Constitution never gives a singular state the right to violate any of their citizens’ first amendment rights. The Constitution also never gives a state the right to make the Electoral College obsolete. Banning “faithless electors”, however, would allow the states to do both. In conclusion, states can not ban “faithless electors” without overreaching their power because banning these electors would violate their constitutional rights. Outlawing “faithless electors” would also devalue the Electoral College by prohibiting a check on the uneducated majority.

    [read less]

    States can not outlaw “faithless electors” without causing the Electoral College to become obsolete, which, in turn, would violate the Constitutio…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alison from Oklahoma

    I don’t think that we should outlaw faithless electors because that is the state of our democracy, having the right to vote for whomever your personal self desires and even though a certain person is predicted or normally votes a certain way does not give states the power to take their voting right away from them. For clarification I personally despise the electoral college but that doesn’t mean that I believe a person should be stripped of their right to choose. To deal with the electoral system we have set up, we must stay true with our American morals until change arises.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that we should outlaw faithless electors because that is the state of our democracy, having the right to vote for whomever your personal…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ella from Kentucky

    It is very essential that those who vote are able to give the voice for the country. To answer the question, these electors should not be outlawed, but there should be parameters. Electors are chosen by their state’s political parties as to fairly represent the people as best as they can. That being said, the citizens expect to be represented by their party. In a way, many think that it is an automatic response for the elector to vote in partisan favor. This should not always be the case though. If the election is close, or many people are against a candidate, even if they are in their party, the elector should have the freedom to vary their vote. This should not be done secretly, but to the public of his/her state. They could even ask for the opinion of the citizens in which they represent. Parties should not divide the country, but rather allow people to state their beliefs. While the electors should not secretly be “faithless”, they should also have freedom in representation.

    [read less]

    It is very essential that those who vote are able to give the voice for the country. To answer the question, these electors should not be outlawed, bu…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Kentucky

    States should not outlaw “faithless electors” because they are elected, choose their own party, and choose who to vote for. Normally, faithless electors follow party lines and are faithful to the candidate they have chosen. Faithless electors use the first amendment, and their freedom of speech to back whichever candidate they desire. The Constitution only outlines how faithless electors are to be appointed, rather than trying to control which way they vote. Faithless electors should not be outlawed just because people believe that whoever wins the popular vote should receive the electors votes from those states, as well. The faithless electors have a right to choose who they are voting for, which is an essential part of a citizen’s rights and freedoms.

    [read less]

    States should not outlaw “faithless electors” because they are elected, choose their own party, and choose who to vote for. Normally, faithless el…

    [read more]
    0
  • Bella from Kentucky

    States should not outlaw faithless electors. This is because the people chosen to represent the electoral college for their state should be able to vote for who they please whether that be following the majority rule or not. The US made the decision that the population should not fully determine the president elected because they will not fully be aware of all the information during the election. This is a freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Sure, there will be people who vote against their own parties, and there will be dishonest people that might take bribes or manipulate the system. However, this is not everyone. This is not even a majority. There are so few people that go against party lines, but when they do it is because they feel that the person that won the popular vote is not as capable as the person they voted for. This is just people expressing their freedom of speech. Electors that are chosen to represent the electoral college almost always vote along party lines, and follow the popular vote. When they change their minds, it is probably for a good reason. Let people vote how they wish to vote, and let people choose for themselves. Why should faithless electors be any different from the rest of the population in that state. Let them vote and let them speak about who they are voting for an why.

    [read less]

    States should not outlaw faithless electors. This is because the people chosen to represent the electoral college for their state should be able to vo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zach from Kentucky

    I believe electors should have the right to change their vote, if they do not feel comfortable with another candidate. If they do not want to vote for there majority candidate, they should have the right to vote for another. It should not be illegal to be a “faithless elector,” for if you trust someone who holds the same views as you, you should be able to vote for the candidate you feel most safe with. Just because there is a majority with your states candidate, doesn’t mean you can’t have the right to change your opinion. All electors should have the right to trust their gut, and vote for who they want to vote for. Not be a follower and stick with the majority.

    [read less]

    I believe electors should have the right to change their vote, if they do not feel comfortable with another candidate. If they do not want to vote for…

    [read more]
    0
  • Shelby from Kentucky

    States should not outlaw faithless electors because each elector should have the ability to vote for who they want regardless of the popular vote. Electors should be able to individually make a decision on the best candidate and vote for them. Forcing electors to vote for the popular vote winner takes away they’re right to vote for who they want. The state should not be able to fine or disregard faithless elector’s votes. Although the electors have a huge impact on who is elected they should still be respected for their votes.

    [read less]

    States should not outlaw faithless electors because each elector should have the ability to vote for who they want regardless of the popular vote. Ele…

    [read more]
    0
  • Isabella from Kentucky

    The United States should not outlaw faithless electors. If an elector is chosen, they have the right to independent ideas. If the elector feels it necessary to vote for a candidate that opposes the party they were chosen to represent, they should have that right. Like any other people in the United States, they should have the right to an unpopular opinion.

    [read less]

    The United States should not outlaw faithless electors. If an elector is chosen, they have the right to independent ideas. If the elector feels it nec…

    [read more]
    0