This blog is not about the Electoral College. The basics are important. It is not a place—it is a process. The U.S. Constitution founded it to clarify that presidents are elected by a vote of the people, not by a vote in Congress. But just in case, they put in place “electors” to count the votes. Those electors are divided into “slates,” identified by political parties in each state. There are 538 electors. A majority, 270, is required to “elect” a president. What is widely misunderstood is that citizens actually vote for the “candidates” preferred electors. Each state decides how to appoint its electors. They should “use the popular vote results from the November general election to decide which political party chooses the individuals who are appointed.”[1]
Sadly, in the 2020 election, “false electors” showed up. “The brazen plan to create false slates of electors pledged to former President Donald J. Trump in seven swing states that were actually won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. was arguably the longest-running and most expansive of the multiple efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election. It was also one of the most confusing, involving a sprawling cast of pro-Trump lawyers, state Republican officials, and White House aides in an effort that began before some states had even finished counting their ballots. It culminated in the campaign to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use the false slates to subvert congressional certification of the outcome on Jan. 6, 2021 — and in the violent attack on the Capitol that unfolded as he refused to do so.”[2]
This blog seeks ethical context in an environment that seems to place winning over morality and false electors over real ones. “In Arizona, fake electors met on December 14, 2020, at the state Republican Party headquarters. The Arizona falsified electoral documents were produced and sent by a group that claimed to represent the “sovereign citizens of the Great State of Arizona.”[3] The Arizona Republican Party then posted on its Twitter account a video of party members signing the certificates and issued a press release.[4]
False electors are prima facie unethical because they are untruthful. Truth is the most important ethical imperative we have. Electors must be truthful, and must not misrepresent the truth by creating and signing false documents.
“Faithless electors are individuals who do not vote for the candidates for U.S. President and U.S. Vice President for whom the elector had pledged to vote, and instead votes for another person for one or both offices or abstains from voting. As part of United States presidential elections, each state selects the method by which its electors are to be selected, which in modern times has been based on a popular vote in most states, and generally requires its electors to have pledged to vote for the candidates of their party if appointed. A pledged elector is only considered a faithless elector by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break. The consequences of an elector voting in a way inconsistent with their pledge vary from state to state.”[5]
It was a shock to millions of voters in 2020 that the core ethics of certifying an election were not followed. Instead, we watched an attack on the capitol. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University connected ethics to certification.
“Imagine for a moment that you are a member of Congress. You have spent hours cloistered in a safe space somewhere in the Capitol complex while rioters vandalize the building and attack police officers. When both houses reconvene after hours of chaos, you face an ethical decision; whether or not to vote to certify election results. The facts are these; there has not been one credible instance proven of voter fraud or ballot tampering in the election. Each state has certified the election results. The election officials who oversaw and certified the election were Republican, Democrat, and Independent. States in question had Democrat and Republican observers who witnessed the vote tally. Several states did multiple vote recounts, showing no notable changes. The president’s attorneys scoured the country for any scrap of evidence to support numerous lawsuits filed to call the election results into question. Each lawsuit was summarily dismissed, by judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Supreme Court, including three justices appointed by the current president, saw no legal standing to take up the case.”[6]
There may be no way to insist on ethical conduct in a process rather than in a place, or as to the individuals who are participants. However, faithlessness ought to be counted as a basic requirement for Electoral College electors. The Cambridge Dictionary says faithlessness is defined by one’s inability to be trusted. Merriam Webster says it means not true to allegiance or duty. Vocabulary.com calls it unfaithfulness because of being unreliable or treacherous, or false, or fickle, or inconsistent.
Might we have faithless electors in 2024? One way to make an educated guess is by revisiting the core problem. “The Constitution requires electors to be people. To constrain their behavior, the District of Columbia and over 30 states have laws requiring electors to vote faithfully for their party’s winning candidate. Around 20 states also have laws to replace faithless electors or penalize them for violating their pledges. The Supreme Court upheld a faithful elector requirement in 1952. In 2020 it upheld two state laws imposing sanctions on faithless electors—in both cases because the Constitution authorizes states to appoint electors “in such a manner as the legislature . . . may direct.”[7]
The Brookings Institution conducts independent research to improve policy and governance at the local, national, and global levels. The appointment of electors is done by political parties. As of March 2024, political parties are not ethically driven. None have ethical codes. None will choose 2024 to include morality, ethicality, or even good conduct as part of their operative mandates. They want to win. Simple. We are likely to have faithless electors this election term. But we can always hope that the winners will be faithfully elected by men and women of good character.
[1] https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html
[3] Hansen, Ronald J. (December 14, 2020). “Fake electors try to deliver Arizona’s 11 votes for Trump”. The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on January 15, 2021. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
[4] Ruelas, Richard (February 2, 2022). “Head of Arizona Republican Party fights Jan. 6 committee subpoena for cellphone records”. The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on February 5, 2022. Retrieved March 10, 2023.
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
[6] https://www.scu.edu/ethics-spotlight/violence-at-the-capitol/ethics-and-certifying-the-election/
[7] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-electoral-college-be-subverted-by-faithless-electors/
I am an author and a part-time lawyer with a focus on ethics and professional discipline. I teach creative writing and ethics to law students at Arizona State University. Read my bio.
If you have an important story you want told, you can commission me to write it for you. Learn how.
I am an author and a part-time lawyer with a focus on ethics and professional discipline. I teach creative writing and ethics to law students at Arizona State University. 
My latest novel is Hide & Be. 
If you have an important story you want told, you can commission me to write it for you. 