LogFAQs > #946377048

red sox 777 posted...

But there's a potential situation where, say, whoever is in charge of running the electoral college meeting in the state allows the faithless vote to go forward. The other campaign sues, and the state courts determine that the decision was incorrect, that the elector should have been replaced under state law. Meanwhile, the electoral vote has already been cast and submitted to Congress. In that situation, I don't think the state courts have the power to stop Congress from counting the vote that was cast, and SCOTUS would also likely refuse to step in. But there's some room for ambiguity.

Whoever is running the meeting is likely from the party that won in that state so any faithless voter would hurt their own campaign and will be dealt with quickly.

red sox 777 posted...

Or, another scenario: the faithless elector is replaced under state law. Undeterred, he casts his vote anyway, and takes it to DC where he presents it to Congress. When Congress meets to count the votes, one of the parties wants to count that vote. Of course this could potentially devolve into the constitutional crisis of a party that won both houses of Congress but lost the presidential election simply submitting a complete set of electoral votes, and counting their own set, even though everyone knows those are not the real electoral votes. But if Congress says so, then their word is final.

I much prefer the constitutional crisis where the Queen fires her whole cabinet, dissolves Parliament, and rules from the throne though.

This makes no sense it would be if a senator who lost an election (or is impeached) tried to place a vote, it obviously wouldn't count.

---

Congratulations to azuarc for winning the guru challenge