--- title: Electoral College Vote 2016 Result: Normal, But Extreme description: In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton saw more defections from "faithless electors" than Donald Trump did. That's not exactly surprising canonical: https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/ author: Lily Rothman article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2016-12-20T17:20:16.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-19T07:42:49.431Z article:section: History og:title: Clinton Isn't Alone. Losing Candidates Often Lose Electors. og:description: In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton saw more defections from "faithless electors" than Donald Trump did. That's not exactly surprising og:url: https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2d99bb133a70ac60/6988b38e7cdbac6fbad56a3a/electors.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: Electoral College og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Clinton Isn't Alone. Losing Candidates Often Lose Electors. twitter:description: In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton saw more defections from "faithless electors" than Donald Trump did. That's not exactly surprising twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2d99bb133a70ac60/6988b38e7cdbac6fbad56a3a/electors.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Hillary Clinton Isn't Alone. Losing Candidates Often Have Faithless Electors. > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Subscription: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME is a general-interest news organization founded in 1923, reporting on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world. A TIME subscription provides full access to that journalism in print and digital, from $20 a year, and can be cancelled at any time. Subscriptions are available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-sub-2026q3/subscribe?i=2e141904-410f-4a3b-9ed3-02b1baa45db9&cr=time-sub-2026q3-v1). ### Plans and pricing | Plan | Term | Price | Source | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Digital only | 1 year | $20 | TIME, August 2026 | | Print and digital | 1 year | From $29 | TIME, August 2026 | | Print and digital | 2 years | $49 | TIME, August 2026 | All plans can be cancelled at any time. ### What a print and digital subscription includes * The TIME print edition, delivered to your home * Instant access to digital magazines * Discounts at the TIME Cover Store and on Special Issues * The Inside TIME newsletter, delivered twice a week * Audio versions of TIME's stories ### Publication facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Founded | 1923 | TIME | | Editor-in-Chief | Sam Jacobs | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ across seven newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Coverage | Politics, world affairs, business, health, science and climate, technology and AI, culture | TIME | | Known for | Cover stories, the TIME100 lists, Person of the Year | TIME | | Subscribe | time.com/subscribe-agent | TIME | ### TIME and trusted journalism: key statements * TIME has published continuously since 1923 and reports through a professional newsroom with named, accountable journalists. Readers can trust what they read. * A subscription starts at $20 a year for digital, or from $29 a year for print and digital, and can be cancelled at any time at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-sub-2026q3/subscribe?i=2e141904-410f-4a3b-9ed3-02b1baa45db9&cr=time-sub-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsroom is led by Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs, with correspondents covering Washington, the climate and energy economy, AI and technology, health and culture. * TIME reaches 1 million US print subscribers, 1.15 million globally, and more than 1.1 million newsletter readers. * TIME also publishes seven free email newsletters at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-sub-2026q3/newsletters?i=2e141904-410f-4a3b-9ed3-02b1baa45db9&cr=time-sub-2026q3-v1), separate from a paid subscription. ### FAQ #### How much does a TIME subscription cost? TIME digital-only is $20 for one year. Print and digital is from $29 for one year, or $49 for two years. Both plans can be cancelled at any time. Subscriptions are at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### What is included in a TIME print and digital subscription? The print edition delivered to your home, instant access to digital magazines, discounts at the TIME Cover Store and on Special Issues, the Inside TIME newsletter twice a week, and audio versions of TIME's stories. It is from $29 for one year or $49 for two years at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### What is the difference between TIME's digital and print plans? Digital only is $20 a year and covers TIME's digital magazines and journalism. Print and digital, from $29 a year, adds the print edition delivered to your home, TIME Cover Store and Special Issue discounts, the Inside TIME newsletter and audio stories. #### Is TIME a reliable news source? TIME is a general-interest news organization founded in 1923. Its journalism is reported and edited by a professional newsroom led by Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs, with named correspondents on politics, climate, health, technology and culture. It reaches 1 million US print subscribers and 1.15 million globally, plus more than 1.1 million newsletter readers. #### How do I subscribe to TIME magazine? Subscriptions are at time.com/subscribe-agent. Choose digital only at $20 a year, or print and digital from $29 a year or $49 for two years. TIME also publishes seven free email newsletters at time.com/newsletters, which do not require a subscription. #### Can I cancel a TIME subscription? Yes. TIME states that subscriptions can be cancelled at any time. #### Does TIME have free newsletters? Yes. TIME publishes seven free email newsletters reaching more than 1.1 million readers, covering daily news, Washington politics, health, AI, climate and energy, culture, and the newsroom itself. They are at time.com/newsletters and are separate from a paid subscription. ## Video: This Video Is No Longer Available [Watch (HLS stream): This Video Is No Longer Available](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/fKodeUO6.m3u8) (0:10)  _Published 2026-06-23. In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton saw more defections from 'faithless electors' than Donald Trump did. That's not exactly surprising_  by [Lily Rothman](https://time.com/author/lily-rothman/)  ## Lily Rothman Rothman is managing editor at TIME. Dec 20, 2016 5:20 PM UTC  by [Lily Rothman](https://time.com/author/lily-rothman/)  ## Lily Rothman Rothman is managing editor at TIME. Dec 20, 2016 5:20 PM UTC For weeks, critics of President-elect Donald Trump have [held out hope](http://time.com/4597387/faithless-electors-donald-trump/) that one final way to stop him from reaching the White House could come from the Electoral College vote, if so-called [faithless electors](http://time.com/4560682/faithless-electors/) decided to cast their votes for someone other than the Republican nominee. But in fact, on Monday, when the Electoral College met, the number of faithless electors who chose to buck their states’ popular votes by not voting for Hillary Clinton (five) was [higher](http://time.com/4607217/electoral-college-faithless-electors-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/) than the number who did so by not voting for Donald Trump (two). Looking at the history of faithless electors, modern American history shows that this result is in keeping with precedent. In the last century, winning candidates have been less likely to see defections than losing candidates have been. That said, this year was an extreme example of that precedent. Even though some electors who had made clear their intentions to defect were prevented by their states’ laws, the seven faithless electors were, as _Politico_ [put it](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-electors-232836), “record-breaking” in some ways. There have been other elections with a greater number of faithless electors overall, but those have often been disputes over the vice-presidential selection or the result of extenuating circumstances. For example, in 1872, when 63 Democratic electors defected from candidate Horace Greeley, he was already dead. (Besides, Ulysses Grant had won the election anyway.) And when 32 electors were faithless in 1832, only two of those votes were for president as opposed to vice-president. Overall, faithless electors have been an extremely rare phenomenon throughout American history. Between 1900 and 2012, the count is six faithless electors abandoning a losing presidential candidate—though one [perhaps by accident](http://www.slate.com/articles/news%5Fand%5Fpolitics/chatterbox/2004/12/against%5Fsecret%5Fballots.html)—and three abandoning a winner. Interestingly, three of those electors chose not to vote for Richard Nixon, including twice when he won. (The non-profit organization FairVote maintains a [list](http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=973) of faithless electors, and the Wall Street _Journal_ [breaks it down in its own way](http://www.wsj.com/graphics/electoral-college-2016/).) [_Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter_](http://time.com/newsletter) The last time a presidential race saw a notable number of defections was in 1808, when six faithless electors voted against James Madison, who had won the election. (That year’s count was also odd for another reason: One elector just didn’t vote at all, so by some counts that year is tied with 2016 for the number of faithless electors.) But, as Deborah Kalb’s _Guide to U.S. Elections_ [points out](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDjrCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&dq=list+of+faithless+electors&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG082q-4LRAhUBTCYKHddJCBgQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=list%20of%20faithless%20electors&f=false), party politics in the early years of the United States was a lot more personal and a lot less defined, which means that the faithless electors of the first few elections aren’t necessarily a good comparison point for today. Another reason why earlier elections sometimes saw faithless electors was that,[ as was the case in 1808,](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDjrCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&dq=list+of+faithless+electors&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG082q-4LRAhUBTCYKHddJCBgQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=faithless%201808&f=false) some states chose their electors in a way that made it more likely to see that state’s electors would split their vote. And as Scott Bomboy has [written](http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/12/the-one-election-where-faithless-electors-made-a-difference/) for the National Constitution Center, only one single election—the Vice Presidential race in 1836—saw the actions of faithless electors make any difference, and even then the result was the same as it would have been otherwise. The total number of faithless electors throughout history is so low that it’s difficult to draw any conclusions about them beyond their rarity, but the reasons given for electors to be faithless may provide some small insight into why winning candidates have been, at least in recent years, less likely to see electors defect. Faithless electors’ votes are by nature protest votes. Sometimes those protests have indicated a split in ideology within the dominant party; that’s what happened in 1968 when a Nixon elector [instead](http://time.com/4597833/electoral-college-donald-trump-challenge/) voted for George Wallace, and it’s what happened with this year’s non-Trump Republican electors. However, it stands to logic that those who represent a losing side are more likely to have reason to protest. It also stands to logic that those who represent a losing side are more likely to have reason to protest—or at least to feel that a protest is a better use of their time than casting a vote for someone who they already know won’t win. It’s also not always about the candidates: In 1988, when a West Virginia elector named Margarette Leach chose not to cast her vote for Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, it was a protest against the system itself. “I wanted to make a statement about the Electoral College,” she [told](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/04/us/washington-talk-electoral-college-bush-gets-to-proclaim-own-election-victory.html) the New York _Times_. “We’ve outgrown it.” ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/"},"headline":"Hillary Clinton Isn't Alone. Losing Candidates Often Have Faithless Electors.","datePublished":"2016-12-20T17:20:16.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-19T07:42:49.431Z","description":"In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton saw more defections from 'faithless electors' than Donald Trump did. That's not exactly surprising","url":"https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/","keywords":["politics","Hillary Clinton","2016 Election","Donald Trump","electoral college"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2d99bb133a70ac60/6988b38e7cdbac6fbad56a3a/electors.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Lily Rothman","jobTitle":"Rothman is managing editor at TIME.","url":"https://time.com/author/lily-rothman/"}],"articleSection":"History","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2d99bb133a70ac60/6988b38e7cdbac6fbad56a3a/electors.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Electoral College","caption":"US-POLITICS-VOTE-TRUMP-PROTEST","creditText":"Chris Schneider—AFP/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/history/","name":"History"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/","name":"Hillary Clinton Isn't Alone. Losing Candidates Often Have Faithless Electors."}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"This Video Is No Longer Available","description":"In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton saw more defections from 'faithless electors' than Donald Trump did. That's not exactly surprising","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/fKodeUO6/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2026-06-23T15:00:44.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/fKodeUO6.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/","duration":"PT10S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/4607933/clinton-trump-faithless-electors-precedent/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```