This week, a Texas elector named Christopher Suprun declared that he will not cast his vote for Donald Trump. Mr. Suprun, a lifelong Republican, believes that Mr. Trump is inherently unqualified to be president, and will not vote for him, despite having sworn an oath to do so. Mr. Suprun cites his conscience, and his prior oath as a soldier, as his reasons.
Is Mr. Suprun’s behavior treasonous? Should we allow him to vote at all? After all, the People of Texas made it clear that they want Trump. Who is Mr. Suprun to say otherwise?
To answer that question, we must look backwards to the founding of our country. We must examine the intent of the men who designed the Electoral College. As usual, we find Alexander Hamilton waiting to talk to us about what the founders were thinking during that hot summer of 1787. And, as we will see, Hamilton would argue that not only does Mr. Suprun have a right to vote his conscience–he in fact has a Constitutional duty to do so!
In Federalist Paper #68, Hamilton tells us that the Electoral College was designed to ensure “that the office of the President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Hamilton, acting as prophet, recognized that “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man. . . .” The Electoral College was designed to rescue us from the very situation we find ourselves in now–where an unqualified person is elevated and poised to take the highest office.
The result of the 2016 election may well have left some Republican electors struggling to reconcile their conscience with their duties as electors. However, a clear understanding of the Constitution shows that there should be no such struggle. Mr. Hamilton and his colleagues clearly, unambiguously, and expressly, placed more faith in the individual consciences of the electors, than in the popular vote. Electors who truly seek to honor their country should look deeply into their consciences before voting, because that is what the founders intended.
Mr. Suprun will soon join the ranks of 177 past electors in history who have voted against their instructions. Of the past 177 cases, no punishment or fine has ever been issued, and if it had, it would have been unconstitutional on its face.
We wrongly apply the term “faithless electors” to these 177 people. That term is a misnomer, because by voting their conscience, those electors really are being “faithful” to the principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. If Mr. Suprun is able to convince 37 of his Republican colleagues (out of some 300 nationally) to do the same, he will have reduced Trump’s electoral number to 269, and the election will go to the House of Representatives. The field would include Trump and Clinton, but could also include someone like Kasich if he was able to secure a few electors. In any event, with Republican control of Congress, the president would undoubtedly be Republican, but it could be a different Republican, perhaps one with some experience governing.
What would Hamilton do? Thanks to the Federalist Papers, we are not required to guess. He would applaud Mr. Suprun for voting his conscience, and he would demand that the other electors vote their consciences as well.