Quote:
Originally Posted by breathesgelatin
Every state has a winner-take-all system when it comes to electors, except for Maine and Alaska.
Electors are obligated to vote for the candidate that wins the majority in their state. An elector who does not vote for the candidate they are pledged to vote is termed a "faithless elector" and is relatively rare. We're talking maybe 1 elector per election and often none. Not anything that's thrown an election to a different candidate. Ever. In the entire history of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector |
I'm not saying that an elector changed their vote in the 2000 election, I was just refering to the girls' assertation. Soemthing about the popular vote decides the electoral votes. I was just pointing out an example where the popular vote doesn't mean that the candidate will get the electoral votes. I guess I should have put that all there, but I thought by just mentioning it, that it was understood.
Although it happens "very rarely," electors are not obligated to vote for the candidate that wins the majority. According to the
NARA:
Quote:
|
It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely.
|
In the 2000 election, Cheney had to change his "home state" from Texas to Wyoming because of the electoral college. Something about electors can't vote for two people from the same state, so either Bush wouldn't have gotten Texas' electoral votes or Cheney wouldn't have gotten the votes.