History....
Tales of the Unfaithful Electors
One of the common criticisms of the U.S. Electoral College is that the electors are not legally bound to vote for a candidate. The "faithless electors" have never been more than one or two isolated individuals in any election, and their breach of trust has never changed the outcome of an election. Still, the idea that a single elector could change the course of history is both romantic and frightening.
One misconception about the Electoral College is that the founders intended for the electors to use their individual judgment in selecting a candidate. A few people at the constitutional convention may have held this view. But at the very first contested Presidential election (that is, in 1796), electors were already pledged to a candidate. Indeed, one Pennsylvania elector pledged to Adams voted for Jefferson, prompting this complaint, not so different from something you might see posted on the Internet:
What, do I chuse Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No! I chuse him to act, not to think.
What remains the most amazing thing about unfaithful electors is that they continue to appear. Both political parties have been inexplicably careless in their selection of electors and have failed to impress upon them the civic duty of being faithful to their pledge. Many states do not even have a formal pledge process, and fewer have enacted sanctions for failure to vote as pledged. (The Supreme Court has ruled that states may empower parties to require a formal pledge from anyone running as a Presidential elector. Ray v Blair, 343 US 214 (1952).)
Remember, too, that in the one election that was so close that a single vote could have changed the outcome (1876), every elector voted as pledged. (The popular vote in 1876 was riddled with fraud. Direct election proponents should ponder this contrast for a bit.) James Russell Lowell, a Republican elector from Massachusetts, indicated that he had been approached to switch his vote, but he would not do so. "It is a plain question of trust," he wrote to a friend.
Unfortunately, not every elector reached the same conclusion. Here are some names of the rogues gallery of U.S. elections:
1960, Henry D. Irwin, "a free elector"
1968, Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, "protest vote"
1972, Roger MacBride, "Libertarian elector"
1976, Mike Padden, "pro-life elector"
1988, Margarette Leach, "get their attention"
Nuff said? Q
