Yes, Electoral College electors can physically change their vote, but doing so is extremely rare and increasingly illegal. In most states, electors are legally bound to vote for their party’s designated candidate, and faithless votes are often voided and penalized under state law.
While the U.S. Constitution originally gave electors the freedom to choose any candidate, the modern political and legal landscape has drastically restricted this independence. Today, the choice of the American electorate is heavily protected against rogue electors.
To understand how this works, we must look at the history of these “faithless electors,” the landmark Supreme Court decisions that govern them, and the strict mechanisms states use to ensure their electors vote exactly as promised.
What is a “Faithless Elector”? #
A faithless elector is a member of the Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidates they previously pledged to support.
When citizens cast their ballots in a presidential election, they are not voting directly for the presidential candidates. Instead, they are voting for a slate of electors chosen by political parties. These electors are expected to represent the popular vote winner of their state (or congressional district, in the cases of Maine and Nebraska) when the Electoral College officially meets in mid-December.
The Framers of the Constitution originally designed the Electoral College as an independent, deliberative body. Men like Alexander Hamilton believed that electors should be free to exercise their own judgment to prevent a demagogue or someone unfit for office from securing the presidency.
However, as political parties formed, the role of the elector quickly shifted from an independent decision-maker to a rubber stamp for the party’s nominee. Over the course of American history, the vast majority of electors have dutifully cast their ballots for their pledged candidates. On the rare occasions when they have not, they have earned the title of “faithless.”
The Legal Landscape: Can States Bind Electors? #
For much of U.S. history, the question of whether a state could legally force an elector to vote according to their pledge remained unresolved. Some argued that the Constitution granted electors absolute freedom of choice. Others maintained that states had the right to govern how their electoral votes were cast.
This debate was decisively settled on July 6, 2020, by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) #
In the landmark case Chiafalo v. Washington (and its companion case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states have the constitutional authority to instruct and bind their electors.
The case arose after the 2016 presidential election, when several electors from Washington and Colorado attempted to cast their electoral votes for candidates other than Hillary Clinton, who had won the popular vote in both states. Washington state fined the rogue electors $1,000 each, while Colorado replaced an elector who refused to vote for Clinton.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, famously stated that the Constitution’s text and nation’s history “support allowing a State to control an elector’s submit-or-be-replaced status.” She wrote:
“The Constitution’s text and our nation’s history both support allowing a State to force an elector to vote for his party’s nominee. … Here, the electors are a State’s creation, and the State has the power to control them.”
How States Enforce Binding Laws #
As a result of this ruling, states have complete legal authority to enforce elector loyalty. Currently, more than 30 states and the District of Columbia have “binding laws” on the books. These laws generally fall into three categories:
- No Penalty: The state requires a pledge, but does not specify a penalty or mechanism for canceling a faithless vote.
- Fines and Penalties: The state imposes a financial penalty or misdemeanor charge on an elector who breaks their pledge (e.g., Washington’s $1,000 fine).
- Vote Cancellation and Replacement: The most effective laws automatically void the faithless elector’s vote, immediately remove them from their post, and replace them with an alternate elector who will vote as pledged.
Because state-by-state laws vary, the stability of the Electoral College can seem complex. To keep track of how different state dynamics and voter sentiments shape the political map, you can download the Election Tracker mobile application to view up-to-date polling maps and state projections.
Has an Elector Ever Changed the Outcome of an Election? #
No faithless elector has ever successfully altered the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
Throughout American history, there have been 165 instances of faithlessness. However, the vast majority of these occurred in the 19th century and did not involve political defiance. Instead, they were primarily the result of a candidate dying before the Electoral College convened.
The Historic Defieance of 1872 #
The most extreme example of shifted electoral votes occurred in 1872. The Democratic nominee, Horace Greeley, died on November 29, 2023—after the popular election but before the Electoral College met. Consequently, the 66 Democratic electors who were pledged to him split their votes among other candidates, including Thomas Hendricks and B. Gratz Brown. Because incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant had already won the election in a landslide, these diverted votes had no bearing on the final result.
Modern Instances of Faithless Voting #
In modern history, faithless voting is typically a form of individual political protest.
- 1972: Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia, voted for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan instead of Richard Nixon.
- 2000: Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic elector from Washington, D.C., abstained from voting to protest the District’s lack of congressional representation, rather than casting her ballot for Al Gore.
- 2016: The 2016 election saw the largest number of faithless electors in the modern era. A total of ten electors attempted to defect. Ultimately, seven succeeded: five Democratic electors (three voting for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle, and one for Bernie Sanders) and two Republican electors (one voting for John Kasich and one for Ron Paul).
Despite the unusually high number of defections in 2016, Donald Trump’s victory margin was wide enough that the faithless votes had zero practical impact on who took the oath of office.
How the Elector Selection Process Prevents Faithless Voting #
Beyond the legal penalties established by Chiafalo v. Washington, the physical process of choosing electors makes faithlessness highly unlikely.
Electors are not randomly selected citizens; they are chosen by the political parties themselves. During state party conventions or through central committee votes, each party nominates its own slate of electors.
These individuals are almost always:
- Longtime party activists
- State or local elected officials
- Relatives of prominent political figures
- Dedicated party loyalists
Because of this selection process, electors have a deep, personal interest in seeing their party’s nominee win. Defecting would mean betraying their political peers, ruining their reputations within their communities, and facing immediate political exile.
Additionally, the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) of 2022 further secured the process. It clarified that Congress must accept the electoral slates officially certified by state governors, severely limiting the potential for alternative, rogue slates of electors to be counted on January 6th.
Why Close Elections Raise the Stakes #
While faithless electors have never changed an election outcome, a highly polarized electorate and razor-thin margins keep the topic relevant. In an incredibly close election—where a candidate wins exactly 270 or 271 electoral votes—even a single faithless elector in a state without a binding law could theoretically throw the presidency to the opposition or trigger a contingent election in the House of Representatives.
Because the stakes are so high, political analysts closely monitor state-by-state polling margins. To get a clearer picture of how these critical swing states are leaning, tracking public sentiment on this interactive election dashboard can provide useful, real-time insights into the electoral map.
Understanding the mechanics of the Electoral College, the strictness of state binding laws, and the historical precedents of faithless voting reveals that while electors can physically change their votes in some states, the legal and institutional guardrails in place make a rogue election-day surprise nearly impossible.
Frequently Asked Questions #
Can an elector be bribed or pressured to change their vote? #
While electors can theoretically face outside pressure, doing so is highly illegal. Attempting to bribe, coerce, or threaten an elector carries severe state and federal criminal penalties. Furthermore, because over 30 states have laws that immediately cancel and replace any rogue votes, a coordinated attempt to buy off electors would be legally neutralized before the votes could even be certified.
What happens if an elector casts a “faithless” vote in a state with no binding law? #
In a state without a binding law (such as Pennsylvania or Texas), a faithless elector’s vote is recorded as cast. While the elector might face intense public backlash, social ostracization, and expulsion from their political party, they do not face legal fines or prosecution under state law, and their vote still counts toward the official congressional tally.
What is a contingent election? #
If faithless electors (or a flat tie) prevent any presidential candidate from reaching the required 270 electoral vote majority, the election is thrown to the House of Representatives. In this “contingent election,” each state’s congressional delegation gets a single vote, and they must choose from the top three presidential candidates. The Senate elects the Vice President under a similar process.