Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
So yes, the "faithless" do effect an outcome....which takes the voting right of the majority of the people and throws it out the window for the rights of a relatively select few. That is a problem for many, and thus the valid point I put forth in this thread's debate.
Completely untrue. All of a state's electoral votes usually go to the candidate winning a plurality of the popular vote. When some electors did not go to the popular vote winner it never affected the outcome of any election. The 5 electoral votes that did not go to Trump or Clinton would not have changed the electoral results since Trump won by 77 electoral votes.
In those 5 elections that the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote, it was not because some electors did not vote for the popular vote winner in their state.
That is not splitting hairs or a moot point because you are trying to claim just the opposite.
The "flaw" is not in the way electors vote but the make-up of the college itself. It works exactly the way it is supposed to work but is a flaw to some because they want the popular vote winner to become president.
In the original plan the electors were expected to vote for the person they thought would make the best president. They were not supposed to vote for the popular vote winner because there was/is no popular vote in the Constitution. They would not choose among candidates running for office because that was not anticipated.
In 2000 there were no faithless electors (one abstained) but the popular vote winner (Gore) did not win the electoral college.