Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Every four years, Americans cast their ballots for president, believing they’re voting directly for their chosen candidate.
They’re not. Instead, they’re selecting a group of people called electors who will meet weeks later to actually choose the president.
Most of the time, this works exactly as voters expect. But sometimes, an elector decides to vote differently than promised—and that’s when things get interesting.
The Electoral College isn’t a building or institution but a process written into the Constitution. It was the founders’ compromise between letting Congress pick the president and letting all citizens vote directly. The system has 538 electors total, and winning requires at least 270 electoral votes—a majority.
Each state gets electors equal to its total members in Congress: House representatives plus two senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. When you vote for president, you’re actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to that candidate. These electors are typically chosen by political parties and expected to vote for their party’s nominee.
But here’s where it gets complicated: the Constitution doesn’t explicitly require electors to vote as promised. This creates a fascinating tension between two competing visions of how democracy should work—one where electors exercise independent judgment, and another where they faithfully reflect voters’ will.
This is the story of “faithless electors” versus “bound electors.”
What Makes an Elector “Faithless”?
A faithless elector is someone who doesn’t vote for the candidates they pledged to support. Instead, they might vote for someone else entirely or choose not to vote at all. The term “faithless” carries moral weight—it suggests betrayal of a promise. This framing shapes how we think about such actions, contrasting with more neutral terms like “discretionary elector.”
A bound elector, on the other hand, is legally required to vote for specific candidates, usually through state law or formal pledges. The binding comes from state-level rules, not federal law. The Constitution says nothing about requiring electors to vote any particular way—that’s entirely up to individual states.
This absence of federal requirements explains why we have a patchwork of different state laws governing electors. Some states impose fines, others threaten criminal penalties, and still others simply void the faithless vote and replace the elector. Some states have no binding laws at all.
The State-by-State Legal Landscape
States have primary authority to regulate how presidential electors are chosen and how they must vote. This power comes from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
As of 2024, 38 states and Washington D.C. have laws requiring electors to vote for their pledged candidates. These laws take several forms:
Pledge Requirements: Many states require electors to take formal oaths to vote for their party’s nominees.
Financial Penalties: These vary widely. Oklahoma imposes a $1,000 fine, North Carolina charges $500. Washington state famously fined several electors $1,000 each after the 2016 election. New Mexico goes further, making faithless voting a fourth-degree felony, though no elector has ever been criminally prosecuted.
Vote Cancellation and Replacement: Fourteen states automatically void faithless votes and immediately replace the elector with someone who will vote correctly. Colorado was the first to actually use this power in 2016, followed by Minnesota. After 2016, Washington changed its law from imposing fines to canceling votes and replacing electors.
Some states still have no binding laws, leaving electors legally free to vote as they choose.
The Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act represents an effort to standardize these rules. Introduced in 2010, it provides a framework where any attempt to vote unfaithfully automatically constitutes resignation from the elector position, with immediate replacement by a substitute who will vote correctly.
Several states have adopted this uniform approach, including Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Washington. The trend shows states increasingly determined to ensure electors vote as expected.
State Laws at a Glance
| State | Pledge Required | Penalty for Faithlessness | Vote Voided & Elector Replaced? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Yes | No penalty | No |
| Arizona | Yes | Elector replaced if fails to vote as pledged | Yes |
| California | Yes | Fine up to $1,000 | No |
| Colorado | Yes | Elector replaced | Yes |
| Florida | Yes | No penalty | No |
| Michigan | Yes | Elector deemed resigned and replaced | Yes |
| New Mexico | Yes | Fourth-degree felony | No |
| North Carolina | Yes | $500 fine; elector replaced | Yes |
| Oklahoma | Yes | $1,000 fine; vote nullified and elector replaced | Yes |
| South Carolina | Yes | Criminal penalties | No |
| Washington | Yes | Vote nullified and elector replaced | Yes |
| Arkansas, Georgia, Texas | No binding laws | N/A | N/A |
Note: This table is illustrative. Laws can change, and readers should check current state statutes.
A History of Electoral Rebellion
Despite the drama they create, faithless electors are remarkably rare. FairVote reports that out of over 23,507 electoral votes cast across 58 presidential elections, only about 90 have been “faithless” votes for president. But this number is misleading—most of these votes occurred in 1872 when Democratic electors couldn’t vote for their nominee Horace Greeley because he died after Election Day but before the Electoral College met.
Excluding cases of candidate death or clear errors, only about 27 electors have intentionally voted against their pledge for personal or political reasons. Still, these rare instances illuminate the tensions within our electoral system.
Notable Faithless Electors Through History
1796: The Original Faithless Elector Samuel Miles, a Federalist elector from Pennsylvania, voted for Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson instead of his party’s nominee John Adams. This remains the only instance of an elector switching to the main opposing party’s candidate in a closely contested election. Miles faced harsh criticism for subverting voters’ choice.
1820: Preserving Washington’s Legacy William Plummer Sr., a Democratic-Republican elector from New Hampshire, voted for John Quincy Adams instead of the overwhelmingly popular James Monroe. His reported motivation was ensuring George Washington remained the only president elected unanimously by the Electoral College, though some suggest he was promoting Adams for future consideration.
1836: The Vice President Crisis Twenty-three Democratic electors from Virginia refused to vote for their party’s vice-presidential nominee, Richard M. Johnson, due to personal scandals. This unprecedented collective action meant no vice-presidential candidate received a majority, throwing the decision to the Senate, which ultimately elected Johnson anyway.
1968: Displeasure with Nixon Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, a Republican elector from North Carolina, voted for American Independent Party candidate George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon. Bailey stated his displeasure with Nixon and noted that Wallace had won his congressional district.
1988: Protesting Winner-Take-All Margarette Leach, a Democratic elector from West Virginia, cast her presidential vote for Lloyd Bentsen (the VP nominee) and her vice-presidential vote for Michael Dukakis (the presidential nominee). She wanted to protest the winner-take-all system and highlight that electors weren’t always bound.
2000: D.C. Statehood Protest Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic elector from Washington D.C., abstained entirely to protest the District’s lack of voting representation in Congress, calling it D.C.’s “colonial status.”
2016: The Great Faithless Elector Rebellion The 2016 election produced the most faithless electors in recent history. Ten electors attempted to vote for candidates other than those they pledged to support, though several attempts were voided by state law or the elector changed course under pressure. Seven electors ultimately cast deviant votes for figures including Colin Powell, Bernie Sanders, Faith Spotted Eagle, John Kasich, and Ron Paul. This reflected widespread protest against both major party candidates.
Despite all the attention and controversy, faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a presidential election. In nearly all cases, they vote for third-party candidates or abstain rather than switching to the main opposing candidate.
Complete Record of Notable Faithless Electors
| Year | Elector/State/Party | Original Pledge | Actual Vote | Motivation | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1796 | Samuel Miles (PA/Federalist) | John Adams | Thomas Jefferson | Personal preference | None |
| 1820 | William Plummer Sr. (NH/Dem-Rep) | James Monroe | John Quincy Adams | Preserve Washington’s unanimous status | None |
| 1836 | 23 VA Democratic Electors | Van Buren/Johnson | Van Buren/William Smith | Protest VP candidate Johnson | VP election to Senate |
| 1872 | 63 Democratic Electors | Horace Greeley | Various | Nominee died before Electoral College met | None |
| 1968 | Dr. Lloyd Bailey (NC/Republican) | Richard Nixon | George Wallace | Displeasure with Nixon | None |
| 1972 | Roger MacBride (VA/Republican) | Richard Nixon | John Hospers/Tonie Nathan | Support Libertarian ticket | None |
| 1988 | Margarette Leach (WV/Democrat) | Dukakis/Bentsen | Bentsen/Dukakis | Protest winner-take-all system | None |
| 2000 | Barbara Lett-Simmons (DC/Democrat) | Gore/Lieberman | Abstained | Protest D.C. lack of representation | None |
| 2016 | 7 various electors | Clinton/Trump | Various (Powell, Sanders, etc.) | Protest major candidates | None |
The Supreme Court Settles the Question
For decades, a key question remained unanswered: could states actually enforce their laws binding electors? The Constitution and federal law said nothing about whether electors must vote according to their state’s popular vote or their pledges. Two landmark Supreme Court cases provided the answer.
Ray v. Blair (1952): Opening the Door
This case began in Alabama, where the state Democratic Party required elector candidates to pledge support for the party’s national nominees. Edmund Blair refused to take this pledge and was denied certification.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that states could allow parties to require such pledges as a condition for becoming an elector. Justice Stanley Reed wrote that while electors perform a federal function, states retain constitutional authority to oversee them. Pledges were legitimate tools for parties to ensure elector loyalty.
Crucially, the Court explicitly stated it was not ruling on whether these pledges were actually enforceable if violated. This left a major question unanswered.
Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent championed elector independence, arguing that “no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text—that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment.”
Chiafalo v. Washington (2020): The Final Word
The 2016 election forced the Supreme Court to address the enforceability question directly. In Washington state, three Democratic electors voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton and were fined $1,000 each. In Colorado, an elector who tried to vote for John Kasich was removed and replaced.
The key question: could states constitutionally enforce pledges by penalizing or replacing faithless electors?
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court said yes. Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion provided several grounds:
Constitutional Authority: Article II’s grant of power to states to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” gives states “the broadest power of determination.” This includes setting conditions for appointment, like requiring electors to honor their pledges.
Historical Practice: Long-established practice shows electors are not free agents but are expected to vote for whoever won their state’s popular vote. Faithless votes are rare historical anomalies, not the intended norm.
No Inherent Discretion: The terms “elector” and “vote” don’t necessarily imply freedom of choice. The Twelfth Amendment facilitated party-line voting rather than deliberation.
Democratic Legitimacy: State power to bind electors “accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome but argued state power comes from the Tenth Amendment rather than Article II.
This unanimous decision sent a strong signal that the Court sees little room for constitutional claims of elector discretion against state binding laws.
Two Competing Visions of Democracy
The faithless elector debate reflects a fundamental tension about how democracy should work—one that goes back to the founding era.
The Founders’ Vision: Deliberative Agents
Many founders envisioned electors as wise individuals who would exercise independent judgment in choosing the president. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 68, argued that electors should be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station” who would act “under circumstances favorable to deliberation.”
Hamilton believed this process would ensure “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications,” rather than someone elevated by “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” The system was designed to prevent “cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”
James Madison also contributed to this understanding. While he personally preferred direct popular vote, he recognized political realities of the time, particularly Southern states’ concerns about their influence under such a system due to smaller enfranchised populations—an issue intertwined with the Three-Fifths Compromise.
The Modern Reality: Faithful Delegates
The founders’ vision was quickly transformed by something they didn’t fully anticipate: organized national political parties. Almost immediately, electors began being chosen not for independent wisdom but for party loyalty.
By the 19th century, it was widely understood that electors were merely agents acting on their party’s preferences rather than exercising independent judgment. The Supreme Court acknowledged this transformation in the 1892 case McPherson v. Blacker, noting that original expectations of elector independence had been “frustrated” by practice.
Today, presidential electors are typically staunch party loyalists, often selected by state party organizations or presidential nominees themselves, with explicit expectations they’ll vote for their party’s candidates.
The Ongoing Philosophical Debate
Even after Chiafalo legally settled the question in favor of state binding power, the philosophical debate continues.
Arguments for Elector Independence: Some argue electors should retain discretion, particularly in extraordinary circumstances. They point to:
- Constitutional language: Terms like “vote” and “ballot” inherently imply choice
- Historical precedent: Congress has consistently counted faithless elector votes throughout history
- Emergency brake theory: Electors could serve as final safeguards against truly catastrophic candidates
Arguments for Binding Electors: The dominant modern view, strongly reinforced by Chiafalo, holds that electors should be faithful delegates:
- Democratic principles: The people’s will, expressed through state popular votes, should be decisive
- Historical practice: Over two centuries of practice shows electors acting as faithful agents
- Preventing chaos: Binding prevents a few individuals from potentially subverting election outcomes
Why This Matters for Democracy
The faithless elector debate isn’t just academic—it has real implications for voter trust and democratic legitimacy.
Voters participate in presidential elections expecting their vote will directly contribute to their candidate receiving their state’s electoral votes. When electors vote differently—become “faithless”—it can undermine public trust in the electoral system. It makes the process appear arbitrary or subject to individual whims rather than reflecting collective will expressed at the ballot box.
Even though faithless electors have never changed an election outcome, their actions can erode confidence by creating perceptions of unpredictability. This is especially problematic when the public isn’t fully aware of the Electoral College’s nuances or their state’s specific laws governing electors.
The Supreme Court’s Chiafalo decision largely resolved the legal question, affirming states’ power to enforce popular will and limit elector autonomy. This may subtly shift electoral reform discussions. With elector discretion significantly curtailed, those dissatisfied with the Electoral College system may increasingly focus on more fundamental structural changes.
These could include advocating for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or promoting proportional allocation of electors within states rather than winner-take-all systems. The more electors are perceived as purely mechanical bound agents, the more the Electoral College system itself may be questioned, especially when its outcomes diverge from the national popular vote.
Looking Forward
The legal ability of states to bind electors and punish faithlessness is now firmly established. But the broader philosophical debate about the Electoral College itself, and the ideal role of electors within it, persists.
Future elections, particularly closely contested ones featuring controversial candidates, could still witness faithless voting attempts. Such events would test the application of state laws and potentially lead to further legal interpretations or legislative adjustments.
The Chiafalo decision may have resolved one aspect of Electoral College criticism, but it hasn’t settled broader questions about the system’s democratic legitimacy. If electors possess no independent agency, public scrutiny naturally shifts to the inherent fairness of electoral vote allocation itself.
As America grapples with questions of representation, federalism, and democratic legitimacy, the faithless elector debate serves as a window into larger tensions within our constitutional system. The founders created a system designed for their time. Whether it serves our time remains an open question.
For citizens seeking to understand their state’s specific laws, resources like the National Conference of State Legislatures, Ballotpedia, and USA.gov provide current information about electoral processes and requirements.
The story of faithless versus bound electors ultimately reflects America’s ongoing struggle to balance competing visions of democratic governance—between trusting elected representatives to exercise independent judgment and ensuring they faithfully represent the people’s will. In the Electoral College, as in much of American politics, that tension remains very much alive.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.