Faithless Electors: Kamala Harris Tasked to Count Electoral Votes and Certify Herself as President
If Kamala Harris can persuade 270 Electors to support her incumbency as President, she will ultimately be tasked with counting the Electoral votes, and certifying herself as the next President of the United States of America. Harris resides in a position of power that bears an immense propensity for exploitation. Kamala Harris, as Vice President, is the President of the Senate; a position with many typical, expected duties that have been historically necessary since our nation’s founding. One of the Vice President’s obligations is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the case of gridlock. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 3, "[t]he Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" (Senate). The United States Senate reports that since 1789 there have been “301 tie-breaking votes” cast by the Vice President, (Senate). This requires possessing a sense of leadership, and maintaining footing within the citizenry—to assess how best to represent the constituency.
The Vice President’s more specific tasks include presiding over the electoral college and declaring the President of the United States of America. Kamala Harris is positioned to count the Electoral Votes and announce the next President of the United States. According to the U.S. National Archives, the Constitution “Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States,” (Archives).
The bottom line—the citizen’s vote does not elect the president; in fact, only 538 Electors are responsible for electing who becomes President of the United States. Kamala Harris will be required to affirm votes from 270 Electors to become the nation’s next president.
Twelfth Amendment
The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution describes the process for the Electoral College. The term Electoral College is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Politics as a “constitutional system where there is continuous consultation in which the ruler and government could be constantly monitored and held responsible not only to God but to the electorate,” (McLean, I., pp. 152, 153). The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part, that “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” (Constitution).
But, the Twelfth Amendment states “if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President,” (Constitution). The United States National Archives adds that “States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors,” (Archives). Should a Vice President fail to be elected by popular vote, a quorum is to be established; thereby providing the Senate the ability to vote who will be Vice President from the two candidates with the highest number of Electoral votes.
Electoral Votes
Many Americans would like to believe that their vote determines who ascends to the position of presidency. But the Electoral College’s authority greatly outweighs the prospects of its citizenry in determining who becomes President. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute (LII) explains that “[i]n the United States, the President and Vice President are not elected directly by the people; rather, they are elected indirectly through the Electoral College process. This election procedure, governed by Amendment XII of the United States Constitution, provides that citizens cast votes for ‘electors’ who, in turn, directly elect the president and vice president,” (LII).
Thus, a citizen’s vote to elect a campaigning politician is merely only a vote for the Elector. The LII reminds Americans that “[w]hen a citizen casts a vote for a particular party’s candidate, he/she is in fact voting for that slate of Electors,” (LII). The United States National Archives reveals that “[t]here is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties,” (Archives).
On July 20th, 2022, the United States Senate introduced S.4573, a bill that “revises the framework for the joint session of Congress to count electoral votes and make a formal declaration of which candidates have been elected President and Vice President. Among other changes, the bill (1) specifies that the role of the Vice President during the joint session shall be ministerial in nature, and (2) raises the objection threshold in Congress to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate,” (Congress). Yet S.4573 does not presuppose the Vice President is the nominee for U.S. presidency; nor that the ministerial nature of the Vice President’s influences may offer a dishonest representation of their intentions; nor of its potential to persuade State Electors.
Faithless Electors
But there exist some protections to preclude Electors from exploiting and abusing their powers against the citizenry. The National Archives reminds citizens that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees,” (Archives). Therefore, “some State laws provide that so-called ‘faithless electors’ may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector, (Archives).
Electors who reject the State’s popular vote for any particular candidate oppose the will of the people. These rogue electors that oppose popular consensus are deemed Faithless Electors. The Legal Information Institute (LII) defines the term Faithless Electors, reminding voters that “[e]lectors are not constitutionally required to vote for the candidates of the party with which they are associated, state law and/or pledges from the political party restrict the Electors to voting only for that party’s candidate,” (LII).
Politicians who vote against the overt popular opinion of their constituency are unconducive to the preservation of America’s Constitutional Republic, and America’s national system of Democracy. Scripture decrees that legislators craft policies that benefit the poor, omitting the propensity to exploit the system for self-enrichment. The Old Testament scribes that “[o]ppressing the poor to enrich oneself, and giving to the rich — both lead only to poverty,” (Proverbs 22:16; CSB). Moreover, “[d]o not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist,” (Proverbs 23:4; ESV).
In the most favorable light; Critics who oppose the Electoral College system ought to consider that “If the Electoral College did not exist, and such a candidate were to win the election, then that candidate would only be representing the interests of those specific regions, and the country could become regionally divided,” (LII). Secondly, as the National Archives reports, “[t]he Supreme Court decided (in 2020) that States can enact requirements on how electors vote. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. However, several electors were disqualified and replaced, and others fined, in 2016 for failing to vote as pledged,” (Archives).
In the least favorable light, Supporters of the Elector College system should note the potential that it is possible that “a party’s candidates [could] receive the required 270 electoral votes—and thereby win the election—without having won a majority of the popular votes of the citizenry,” (LII). Therefore, as the National Archives reminds American citizens, “[i]t is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a national popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the national popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state,” (Archives).
Conclusion
Kamala Harris is tasked with upholding transparency and ensuring civic representation; in accordance with the will of the constituency. But a Kamala viewpoint may supplant the interests of its opposition; at any cost. The federal government must continue to ensure that every American’s vote matters—through its action and conduct, not by an enumerated sanction. But the potential for an Elector’s usurpation of citizen representation remains; no matter the reliability of the candidate, nor their pledge to vote in a particular manner. Electors unwilling to vote in accordance with the majoritarian vote of the citizenry can face consequences, but these penalties are unguaranteed. Citizens ought to hold their State Electors accountable, and continue to ensure they vote according to the will of the majority.
Bibliography
Archives. (Accessed on July 23rd, 2024). About the Electors | National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors.
Archives. (Accessed on July 23rd, 2024). Electoral College Timeline of Events | National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates
Archives. (Accessed on July 23rd, 2024). Frequently Asked Questions | National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq
Congress. (Accessed on July 24th, 2024). Text - S.4573 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573/text
LII. (Accessed on July 24th, 2024). Electoral College | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electoral_college.
McLean, I., et al. (1996). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (Oxford Quick Reference). Oxford University Press.
Senate. (Accessed on July 23rd, 2024). U.S. Senate: Votes to Break Ties in the Senate. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/TieVotes.htm.
Senate. (Accessed on July 23rd, 2024). U.S. Senate: Officers and Staff. https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff.htm.