AP: Washington Democratic elector says he will not vote for Clinton

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wow. What a self-righteous douche. What a smack in the face to the 52% of Washingtonians - a group disproportionately composed of women and minorities - who voted for Clinton in the primary.

Would you take the same view of a Republican elector who couldn't vote for Trump because of one of the many reasons given here regularly not to support Trump?

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is some real selfishness on his part. He can cast his regular vote based on how he feels about the candidates. The electoral college vote is supposed to validate the will of the people, not serve as his protest mechanism. If he can't do what is required of him, he should step down.

And he shouldn't be hoping more people do this, either. No electors should be casting protest votes. They need to respect the people's votes. If the state says to vote according to the PV of their state/CD, then that is what they should do. If they can't, step down. That applies to electors for Trump as well.

Just another reason we need to abolish the EC. We can't have people like this hijacking the EC to drive their own agenda.

I'll give a bi-partisan thumbs up to this.

This may well be an issue on where there will be bi-partisan consensus after the election.  I will not be surprised if there are a record number of Faithless Electors this year.  I would not be shocked if this election goes to the Congress.  And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the winner of this election has fewer popular votes than the loser.

I've also got to believe that folks are tired of Battleground States driving the Presidential agenda.  How much attention does PA, OH, and FL get?  How much attention does NY, CA, and TX get?  I've got to believe that there is some critical mass building on this issue that events may help along.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Clinton goes below 270 due to a faithless elector, the House will choose Trump.
If Trump goes below 270 due to faithless electors, he will still be chosen by the House.
The House votes by states and a President needs 26 state votes to win, the GOP has a majority in 33 states (the Democrats only in 14).

I am not convinced that the House would not choose someone other than Trump if a Faithless Elector chose to vote for a Republican who was House Republicans' idea of a President.  Like Paul Ryan.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If this would decide the election to 269-268-1, would the GOP House just accept Clinton or would they go on and vote for Trump?

The House would probably deadlock, and whoever the Senate elects as VP would become president.

multiple ballots until somebody receives a majority. it must be one of the 3 who received the most electoral votes for pres, not vp

But someone might never receive a majority.  That's my point.  As we've gone over in threads like this before, there are likely enough anti-Trump Republicans in the House to block his election there, especially since the Republicans are likely to lose some more seats next week.  So if the House elects no one as president, then whoever the Senate elects as VP would then take over as president.

Of course, he'd be the "Acting President".  It would be unprecedented.  It would be like John Tyler being referred to "His Accidency" after William Henry Harrison died in office.