Welcome to our latest Monthly Topic! Remember, you don’t have to write an eloquent treatise – just a couple of simple sentences will do!
It’s a great time for our NEW MEMBERS to jump in and let their voices be heard!
Many states, but not all, require presidential electors to vote for the candidates (party ticket) for which they pledged to vote, whereas other states allow electors to change their minds. Should electors be allowed to change their minds?
Yes, electors should be allowed to change their mind, because what if the candidate between the elector’s pledge and election day does something drastic? Should the elector be forced to vote for that candidate? We the people certainly aren’t bound by that If we support someone throughout the summer of an election year and then the person does something we really disapprove of in the fall, we can change our minds come election day.
I understand the instinct behind your argument. On a purely moral level, it makes sense to say that if a candidate were to do something truly disqualifying between the summer and December, an elector might feel obligated to reconsider.
That said, the Supreme Court has already addressed this issue directly as C. Ellen Washington noted. SCOTUS treated electors not as free agents exercising independent discretion, but as tools of the state’s electoral decision. While voters may change their mind (even after the actually casting their votes), electors are acting after the people of their state have already voted. At that stage, they are carrying out a ministerial function tied to the state’s popular decision, not exercising independent political judgment.
Your hypothetical about a candidate doing something “drastic” is certainly worth considering, but our constitutional system already has mechanisms for extreme situations. If the conduct rises to the level of constitutional wrongdoing, the remedy is impeachment by Congress. If it concerns incapacity, the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a framework.
John
It’s a tough call. Shelley, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what about voters who voted for a particular elector? Is that elector not bound to honor those voters’ wishes?
Good point about having some kind of rule that permits an elector to change their vote due to some extreme, unforeseen circumstance arising after the election but prior to certification. However, these circumstances would need to be clearly defined and agreed upon upfront – example, a sudden medical emergency that permanently incapacitates the elected candidate. Absent such a rigorous rule, I do not agree with an elector being able to subvert the “will of the people” – those who cast their vote for the winning candidate.
Great points already provided here. This is a tough call. There are pros and cons to either stance. However, having narrow exceptions on when an elector can deviate from the agreed upon vote may work well too. This would help in establishing a check and balance in the elector process. It would also keep with the constitutional principles in why electors were established.
This question touches on a fundamental tension in American democracy: whether electors should function as independent decision-makers exercising judgment or as bound agents executing the popular will of their state’s voters.
Arguments for allowing electors to change their minds emphasize the Founders’ original intent. The Electoral College was designed as a deliberative body where informed electors could exercise independent judgment, potentially serving as a safeguard against populist candidates deemed unfit for office. Allowing discretion preserves this constitutional design and maintains flexibility in extraordinary circumstances—such as if a candidate dies, becomes incapacitated, or revelations emerge between Election Day and the Electoral College vote.
However, compelling arguments exist for binding electors to their pledges. Modern democratic norms prioritize popular sovereignty—voters choose candidates expecting their votes will be honored. “Faithless electors” who vote contrary to their state’s results undermine public trust and create uncertainty about whether electoral outcomes reflect voter intent. In closely contested elections, even a small number of faithless electors could override millions of votes, raising serious legitimacy concerns. Practically, faithless electors have rarely changed election outcomes, but the 2016 election saw an unusually high number, renewing debate about the practice. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Chiafalo v. Washington upheld states’ authority to bind electors and penalize faithlessness, suggesting the Court views electors as agents of state will rather than independent actors.
On balance, binding electors to their pledges better aligns with contemporary democratic expectations while states retain authority to structure their electoral processes. If we value popular sovereignty and predictable electoral outcomes, enforceable pledges serve these principles more effectively than discretionary voting.
Excellent analysis. Thank you for your insight!