GWU LAWPROF JOHN BANZHAF: Already One Rogue Elector; But Many More Are Suddenly Possible.

Since at least one elector has already publicly announced that he will not vote for the candidate he is pledged to, the door is open wide for other rogue electors – sometimes called “faithless electors” – to likewise not only break their pledges, but perhaps for the first time in history to actually deny the election to the candidate with the most electoral votes. . . .

In a close election, only a few electors who do not cast their electoral votes as they had pledged can change the outcome of the election, either by putting the candidate with a not quite enough electoral votes over the top, or perhaps even by throwing the presidential election into the House of Representatives.

Although there have been more than 150 instances in the past where electors changed their votes, in none has the outcome of the presidential election been fundamentally altered.

It’s 2016 man, anything can happen.

UPDATE: Jim Bennett emails: “I prefer to call then “Faithful to the Founders’ intent.”. I suspect most of the founders would have agreed that if the major candidates lacked republican virtue, it would be the electors’ duty to choose somebody else who did.”