Is There A History of Electors Being Threatened and "In Play" Like This?

I'm in my mid thirties, so I know I haven't seen it all, but I don't remember the topic of electors ever being an issue.

I remember Ron Paul's supporters trying to become electors to vote for him in the primary in 2012 I think it was, but I've never seen it even mentioned much in the general election.

It's like Trump has to win twice - first with the people and then with this small group of people who are receiving threats to vote for someone else. That is just so wrong. Does anyone here remember when electors actually came into play or were like a second election for a President? All I ever remember is the President being chosen on election day (except for Gore/Bush but that didn't bring electors into play).

Age 69 and I’ve been watching elections since I stayed up late to watch the Kennedy/Nixon results on TV. I think I read that there was one faithless elector that had a protest vote.

Never ever seen such shenanigans, and have never seen such blatant dereliction of duty by the Presstitutes. Ordinarily such antics would be laughable, since electors adhere to their party-but in this case, who knows what GOPe is doing behind the scenes-guess that’s why Donald chose Reince to help keep the faithless faithful.

Of course what passes for news on TV these days is little more than Tabloid fodder for the most part, so I no longer expect much from them.

I'm 65 and this subject comes up most elections. Students today aren't taught that we are a republic and what that means. Every day, all day, we hear that we are a democracy. I was taught that democracy is mob rule. 50+1 will get slavery reinstated with that philosophy. You must be taught the advantages of a republic to even want one today. Another "quote" that was preached to me from birth was "Government" is force. Why would anyone ever want to be forced into everything they do. Another was Socialism doesn't work,....ever,....anywhere. We have spent 100 years with Social Security and every couple of years, we have to "save it". People still say it's successful knowing it's going broke, can never be "fixed" and forever will be in jeopardy. Medicare is another "successful" socialist program that is even "broker" than Social Security. It makes up 3/4 of the nations debt and can never support itself so Obamacare is needed to fix our medical problems. All this pain and misery could have been avoided by listening to my 6th grade Social Studies teacher back in the '60's.

A quick diagnosis of this election will show that all the under 35, dope head, queer, flag burning, baby killers live in NYC, California, Chicago, Detroit, and a sprinkling of other counties throughout the US. If we lived in a democracy, Kansas and Arkansas would never have a say in anything. When things get to that point, the guns and ammo break out every time. If the collection of idiots all live in a couple of states, the others have no choice but to change things.

Under normal circumstances, most states are 51/49% and the electoral college matches the popular vote. When you have several states that have 60+% of one party win the vote, it will skew the popular vote vs the college. If 90% of Detroit votes Dem, it can skew the vote for MI for decades. What does South Dakota see in Republicans, Detroit cannot seem to fathom? The fact that Detroit has more voters than the whole state of South Dakota would mean S. Dakota would never get what it wants. If the Electoral College went away, all our presidents would be from Chicago, NYC, or LA.

I hope you’re right...and I’ve been thinking things were fine and that the left was just being stupid. I know that Alex Jones can be a scaremonger at times, but here’s a video where he has a guest make some claims about what Hillary and the left are going to do with the electoral voters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SKVC6VxNU

It’s....disturbing but at the same time I’m skeptical of him. I’m just ready for Trump to be in office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

1960 - Republican elector from Oklahoma tried to deal with the Dixiecrats to elect Harry F. Byrd instead of Kennedy.

The other cases appear to be independent decisions by the elector.

The 1796 story is clearly incomplete. The vote was Jefferson 73, Burr 73, Adams 65, Pinckney 64, Jay 1.
If Miles was faithless, there must have been at least one other faithless elector from Pennsylvania (total EV in PA was Jefferson 8- Burr 8- Adams 7- Pinckney 7- Jay 0).
Also there was a “faithless” elector from Rhode Island who voted for Jay.
Had the final vote been Jefferson 73, Burr 72, with one of the Burr electors voting for someone else, then the presidential election would never have gone to the House at all. (Jefferson would have won the presidency outright, and Burr would have won the vice presidency outright).

The 12th amendment rectified the necessity of a designated faithless elector.

Oops....I was looking at 1800. They say “0 but almost 1.”
Although had Lispenard wanted Burr for President he didn’t have to vote for Burr twice - he could have voted for someone other than Jefferson - it would have then been Burr 73, Jefferson 72. Burr would have been President and Jefferson would have been vice President.

1796 - they say 19...which included one Federalist elector voting for Jefferson and 18 others voting for someone other than Pinckney. The actual vote appears much more complicated than that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.