You may recall much discussion, in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, of the possibility that presidential electors - the folks who, under ...

A cert petition (available here) has been filed with the Supreme Court in the latest case involving "faithless electors," Chiafalo et al. v. State of Washington. [Historian Michael Rosin and I ...

A historic number of “faithless” electors -- seven in total--each cast their ballots on Monday for a candidate other than the one who won his or her state. What may be more surprising, given ...

The pre-selection of electors ironically explains the most recent important instance in which electors were “faithless” and did not vote for their pledged presidential candidate. In 2016, the state of ...

In modern times, faithless electors have been rare, with only one in each of the 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1988 elections.

In the past, “faithless electors” have voted against their party’s candidate, slightly changing the Electoral College vote count.

In the Electoral College, "faithless electors" don't vote according to the statewide or district popular vote. Here's what that means for 2020.

Thirty-two states have some sort of faithless elector law, but only 15 of those remove, penalize or simply cancel the votes of the errant electors.

Here’s what you need to know: What are faithless electors? Through the Electoral College system, each state gets a certain number of electors based on how many representatives it has in Congress.

Remember “faithless electors” — those almost mythical rogues that Hillary Clinton fans once desperately hoped could save them from a victorious Donald Trump four years ago?

Supreme Court 'faithless electors' ruling aims to stabilize the election, but will it work? The court didn't fix everything. Faithless electors could still throw the election, and Congress would ...