2016 electoral college voting **live commentary thread**

[Nym90]

According to the Constitution "no person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. "  Bill Clinton is an elector from NY and he receives both a pension and office expenses from the US and hence receives a profit for his office.  So he seems to be an illegal vote for Clinton.

So by your logic, any former employee of the federal government who receives a pension is barred from being an elector?

I interpret "holding an office" to mean currently in office, and thus excluding benefits given to former officeholders. And office in this context clearly doesn't mean a workspace, but rather an official government elected position.

[Nym90]

Congress wouldn't count it though, since he's ineligible.

Trump could nominate him to the Supreme Court, however. There are absolutely no restrictions in terms of age, citizenry or otherwise as to who can be appointed to the Court.

[Nym90]

FAITHLESS ELECTOR IN MINNESOTA, PREVENTED BY MINNESOTA LAW.

Was he trying to vote for John Ewards again?

Does anyone know what happened in 2004 and who did he vote for VP?

In 2004, voting in Minnesota was by secret ballot. One elector apparently got confused and marked both ballots for Edwards.

Since then, Minnesota has enacted the model faithless elector act which is quite elaborate.

(1) Electors must pledge to vote for their party's presidential candidate;
(2) The Certificate of Ascertainment from the governor notes that vacancies might occur prior to the end of the meeting;
(3) A vote is not considered "cast" until the Secretary of State examines it and determines that the vote is consistent with the pledge.
(4) If an elector refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge, his position is deemed vacant.
(5) Vacancies are filled by an elaborate procedure:
    (a) Each elector has an alternate (Minnesota parties name 10 electors and 10 alternates).
    (b) If the alternate is not available, then one is chosen by lot from among the other alternates.
    (c) If no alternates are available, then other electors choose someone who is available, and willing
          to take the pledge and then vote.
    (c.i) If it is a tie vote, the replacement is chosen by lot.
    (d) If there are no electors, the SOS can appoint 1, who then begins the process of filling the vacancies.

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.