DC Electoral College Abstention

[Sorenroy]

Just a quick question: It appears that in 2000 Barbara Lett-Simmons decided abstain from voting, thus giving only two electoral votes to the District of Colombia. I fully understand her reasoning (protest of DC's status) but how is this legal? Especially in a state that voted so overwhelmingly for one side, how can someone refuse to vote? Could this be done in any other place? Could someone (hypothetically, of course. No one would dare fight the backlash that would ensue) choose to vote on the other side, ignoring to voters and using their position of authority to force one side to win? Has anything changed since then? And finally, since I clearly don't understand this whole process, there are still actual people in the Electoral College? I just thought that whoever won the majority of the vote in the state would automatically win the Electoral College votes.

[RI]

I fully understand her reasoning (protest of DC's status) but how is this legal?

Electors can vote for whomever they want.

[Sorenroy]

I fully understand her reasoning (protest of DC's status) but how is this legal?

Electors can vote for whomever they want.

So, for instance, if the election looked like it was coming down to a 269-269 split, a Democratic Electoral College member from Utah, or Republican Electoral College member from the District of Colombia could decide to vote for the other side to tip the scales?

[nclib]

I believe that DC elector said she would not have abstained if it was the deciding vote.

[Nutmeg]

I fully understand her reasoning (protest of DC's status) but how is this legal?

Electors can vote for whomever they want.

So, for instance, if the election looked like it was coming down to a 269-269 split, a Democratic Electoral College member from Utah, or Republican Electoral College member from the District of Colombia could decide to vote for the other side to tip the scales?

There wouldn't be a Democratic elector from Utah or a Republican elector from D.C. unless the election had turned out very differently.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I fully understand her reasoning (protest of DC's status) but how is this legal?

Electors can vote for whomever they want.

Not entirely true. Many states have laws that require electors to vote for their state's PV winner, or that punish faithless electors.

[kohler]

Now 48 states have winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws (neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution).

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
   
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

[kohler]

By state laws, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.   
         
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
               
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. 
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
               
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
               
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com