The heated run towards the official recognition of the nation’s next leader picks up speed as the Electoral College prepares to cast its crucial ballots on Tuesday. This step is projected to confirm ex-President Donald Trump’s splendid comeback to the Oval Office. Estimates point towards Trump garnering a secure 312 electoral votes, handsomely crossing the 270 mark which is the threshold to clinch victory. Trump’s triumph is further fortified by a lucrative lead of approximately 2.5 million in the popular vote, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris trailing behind.
The assembly of these decisive electors, based on the National Archives, is traditionally scheduled to occur on the first Tuesday subsequent to the second Wednesday in December post the general elections. This year, the significant event is pinned down to Tuesday, December 17. The electors will be casting their powerful votes for the presidential and vice presidential candidates in their respective states.
The Electoral College symbolizes a body of electors appointed by each state to effectively reflect the will of the public through their votes. The system is set up such that the amount of electors each state possesses is the same as its collective count of Congressional delegates. As it stands, the Electoral College comprises 538 electors, with a dominant 270 votes required to secure the presidency.
A notable example is Texas, proudly holding 38 electors, outdone only by California with its hefty 54 electors. Interestingly, the Electoral College system carries an unusual caveat where its members, although ostensibly representing the public opinion of their state, can hypothetically vote against the popular mandate. However, these instances are barely witnessed and such electors are consequently labeled as ‘faithless electors’.
It’s important to highlight that there’s no conclusive federal law mandating that an elector strictly adhere to voting as per the popular outcome in their state. They may, if they desire, vote otherwise, but many states enforce their own binding laws compelling electors to follow the popular vote. Transgressing these rules can lead to potential legal actions such as substitution of the elector or even a fine.
In a remarkable decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020, it was decreed that states carry the authority to impose laws necessitating electors to respect the popular vote. This move effectively curtails the appearance of faithless electors, but theoretically, electors retain the choice to vote as per their personal discretion.
The phenomenon of faithless electors has been witnessed in some recent elections, notably in 2000 and 2016. To illustrate, the contested 2000 election, which saw George W. Bush barely overcoming Al Gore, had incidences of faithless electors. One elector each from Washington and Minnesota decided to cast votes for candidates not represented by Bush or Gore. Needless to say, their unorthodox votes were unable to sway the final results.
In the 2016 voting, a more noticeable occurrence of faithless electors happened when seven electors – five hailing from Washington and two from Hawaii – chose to defy the pledge to their designated candidate. The intrigue of these rebellious moves notwithstanding, the final victory was undeniably Trump’s as he gracefully acquired the presidency despite the unexpected electoral discord.