Sentences with phrase «faithless electors»

In 1836, 23 faithless electors for Virginia were almost successful when it came to electing the vice president.

It is not unheard of that individual «faithless electors» vote different than mandated by the result in their state for whatever reason.

It also has the electoral college votes per state, but it removes faithless electors for other candidates.

Recounts taking too long makes the unlikely prospect of faithless electors more feasible.

But if one or more Trump states fails to vote at all, fewer faithless electors are required to throw it to Congress.

Absent any faithless electors, that would be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

However, the only time that that many faithless electors existed, it was because their candidate died.

Other than that, the next largest numbers of faithless electors were for the vice-presidential candidates.

And faithless electors would allow a third candidate to be considered, perhaps someone that could get Republican votes in Congress.

I suppose that you could have a bunch of faithless electors.

What they'd probably do is to vote for their party's presidential candidate, and become «faithless electors» when it came to the VP, either abstaining from that vote, or voting for a non-Texan (presumably, a different member of their own party) for that office.

Several states have laws that purport to restrict or punish faithless electors for their electoral votes.

So the «faithless elector» equivalent can not happen at the Republican convention.

See Wikipedia's Faithless elector: Legal position.

This is the origins of the concept of the faithless elector.

As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.

Oddly there has been «Faithless elector» that voted for someone else.

Not exact matches

The states will almost certainly all finish their recounts on time and only a scattered few electors will be faithless.

If this is the case, it seems the only reason of the existence of elector vote is to give the electors a chance to be faithless, is it correct?

If this is the case, it looks like the only reason for the elector vote is to let some electors be faithless.

Requiring 7 % of electors from the electoral college to be faithless is unprecedented.

If this is case, In December, the 5 elector from Party B have to vote to Candidate A if they don't want to be faithless, which is different from whom they voted to in the general vote, and quite likely against their will, is it correct?

Also, if the Republican state committee feels a particular elector is faithless, they can appoint a new elector.