Our country has been in a constant state of constitutional crisis. With our founding document being stretched, challenged, and at times ignored, the unprecedented becoming the norm, there's no better time to examine the loopholes in our system of government that we may not even realize exist, such as the concept of faithless electors in the Electoral College.
Electors in the U.S. Electoral College are generally expected to vote for their state’s winning candidate. However, history has shown that some electors have opinions, and they don’t always align with the voters. These so-called faithless electors go rogue by casting a ballot for someone other than their designated candidate, sometimes as a protest, sometimes as a strategic move, and occasionally just to cause mischief.
Now, you might think, "Isn’t that illegal?" Well, in some places, yes. In others? Not really.
Did you know there are still 13 states that have no laws requiring how electors should vote? These states, collectively totaling 106 electoral votes, include:
Arkansas (6 electoral votes)
Georgia (16 electoral votes)
Idaho (4 electoral votes)
Kansas (6 electoral votes)
Kentucky (8 electoral votes)
Louisiana (8 electoral votes)
Missouri (10 electoral votes)
New Hampshire (4 electoral votes)
New Jersey (14 electoral votes)
Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes)
Rhode Island (4 electoral votes)
South Dakota (3 electoral votes)
West Virginia (4 electoral votes)
In the aftermath of the 2016 election, a group called the “Hamilton Electors” (named after—you guessed it—Alexander Hamilton) had a bold idea. In the Federalist Papers #68, Hamilton wrote about electors who select the president:
“…the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
A group of electors across a few states, who coined themselves “The Hamilton Electors,” including Michael Baca (featured in the video above), a former Marine and high school Government teacher was a Democratic elector in the state of Colorado during the 2016 presidential election cited Hamilton’s Federalist Papers #68, positioning themselves as the last line of defense to protect America from what they deemed as an unfit candidate, then President-Elect Donald J. Trump.
Their goal? To prevent Donald Trump from reaching 270 electoral votes by convincing enough electors to vote for an alternative candidate. The hope was that this would trigger a contingent election, in which the House of Representatives could select a more "acceptable" president.
Even though they didn’t believe electors should have unlimited voting freedom, they saw themselves as following an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Their goal was to expose what they viewed as a flaw in the Electoral College while blocking a Trump presidency.
Prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the phenomenon of faithless electors —members of the Electoral College who cast their votes contrary to their pledged candidate —had occurred, but it had rarely influenced the election outcome. Historically, there have been 165 instances of faithless electoral votes, often as symbolic gestures or due to unforeseen circumstances surrounding the candidate, such as the death of a nominee. Faithless votes have always been counted in the official electoral count, but these deviations have not altered the final result of a presidential race.
The Legacy of Michael Baca
Are electors just rubber stamps, or do they have the constitutional right to vote their conscience? The Supreme Court ruled that the states have the sole authority to decide how their electors vote.
So, while Michael Baca didn’t change the course of the 2016 election, he did make history. And in the grand tradition of Hamilton himself, he got his name forever tied to an important fight over democracy, thankfully, without dueling pistols.
But we should all be aware that in a tightly contested election, the actions of faithless electors could become more consequential. For instance, if a candidate secures exactly the 270 electoral votes needed for victory, a single faithless elector defecting could reduce their count to 269, resulting in no candidate achieving the required majority of 270. This scenario would trigger a contingent election, where the House of Representatives selects the president, and the Senate chooses the vice president.
The Consequences of Loose Elector Laws
So what if Baca had pulled off his plan? What if enough electors in unregulated states had flipped their votes?
Contingent Election Chaos – If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives picks the president (with each state delegation getting just one vote—meaning Wyoming has the same say as California). Meanwhile, the Senate picks the vice president. Imagine a Biden-DeSantis administration. That’s the kind of weirdness this could cause.
Elector Bribery or Influence – With no binding laws in some states, what’s stopping a billionaire (or a very persuasive lobbyist) from offering an elector an "incentive" to vote differently? It’s a political loophole with no mechanism to prevent it from happening.
Could Faithless Electors Change a Future Election?
Given the razor-thin margins in recent elections, yes. If an election comes down to just a few electoral votes, and those electors are in states without binding laws, a couple of faithless votes could decide the presidency.
Even though Baca lost his court battle, his case proved that the role of electors isn’t fully settled. One thing’s for sure: if a future election is close enough for faithless electors to matter, expect another political firestorm.
Until then, we wait… and maybe keep an eye on those 13 states that still let electors go rogue.
Share this post