For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.Skip to main content
A member of the U.S. Electoral College who casts a presidential or vice-presidential vote for someone other than the candidate they pledged to support.
In U.S. presidential elections, voters do not directly choose the president; they choose electors who then cast formal votes in the Electoral College. Electors are typically party loyalists nominated by state parties and are expected — by pledge, party rule, or state law — to vote for their party's nominee. A faithless elector (sometimes called a "Hamilton elector" after Federalist No. 68) breaks that pledge.
Faithless electors have appeared sporadically throughout American history but have never altered the outcome of a presidential election. The most recent notable instance was the 2016 election, when seven electors successfully cast deviant votes — the largest number in a contested election since 1872. Three Washington State electors voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton, one voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, and two Texas electors declined to support Donald Trump, voting instead for John Kasich and Ron Paul.
Roughly 30 states plus D.C. bind their electors by law, though enforcement mechanisms vary. The U.S. Supreme Court resolved the constitutionality of these laws in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), ruling unanimously that states may penalize or replace faithless electors. The companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca reached the same conclusion. The decisions effectively closed off faithless electors as a viable mechanism for overturning a popular-vote result within a state.
Key features:
For MUN and IR researchers, the concept illustrates the gap between popular legitimacy and constitutional formality in indirect electoral systems.
No. While faithless votes have been recorded in many elections, none has flipped the result of a presidential contest.
It depends on the state. About 30 states and D.C. bind their electors by law, and the Supreme Court held in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) that such laws are constitutional.
The nickname references Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 68, which framed electors as independent deliberators capable of blocking unfit candidates — an argument revived by 2016 dissenters.