How do we know who the electors are voting for when the names of the candidates are not unique nationwide?

Question

I've been looking at certificates of electoral votes for presidential elections in the US, and I've noticed that in many cases there is a lack of specificity. Altough some of them state the state where the candidates reside (and I've seen at least one where even their town is mentioned), in many cases the only thing the certificate mentions is the name of the candidates itself. For example in North Carolina, only the candidates' first and last names were mentioned in 2020 - not even the initials of their middle names.

Now, according to manyof.me, there are roughly 17 people in the United States named Donald Trump and 2 people named Kamala Harris (and also 292 named John McCain and 334 named George Bush). So how do we know which of them the electors actually voted for?

This question might seem unreasonable, but please note that in a politically charged situation, loopholes like this become relevant. A candidate who is losing the election could in theory (if he or she has an allied vice president who presides over the Senate) try to invalidate their opponent's votes during the process of certification on January 6 by claiming that they went to someone else. In a tight race, even by invalidating the votes from a single state could flip the outcome of the election.

Answer 1

The question is indeed unreasonable.

All legal and political questions come with a context.

The major party nominees are well known. The persons who qualified for the ballot in each state are known. The intent of the electors for each Presidential ticket couldn't be more clear.

Ultimately, Congress interprets and counts the electoral votes that are cast in January 6 of the year following the election. They know who the intended candidates are in the case of each slate of electoral votes.

No one would reach the conclusion that you suggest. If someone is going to defy the intent of the voters, there will be a claim that the results from a state were invalid that Congress may seek to resolve. But even in our highly charged political environment in the U.S., where core assumptions are tested, the notion of staying that someone intended to vote for some other Donald Trump or some other Kamala Harris doesn't pass the straight face test. Neither party is united enough for this to work. Even a small number of people willing to put nation over blatant, outright election theft is enough, and right now there are at least enough people on each side to prevent that from happening.

Answer 2

Individuals must register in each state, and pay a fee, to stand candidacy. In North Carolina, for example, the form must be notarized or the candidate must show up in person at the State Board of Elections. Further, President/VP is a partisan position; ballot access is based on their party being a recognized party and their nomination, and such party is printed on the ballot.

Therefore, until multiple Kamala Harrises and Donald Trumps stand for election, the name is unambiguous, and even then we could tell between the Democrat and Republican version.

Including more information (date of birth, etc.) is confusing, particularly for those who cannot read or have a language disability. This is why in countries with lower literacy rates, candidates are also identified by an icon.

Answer 3

You're not voting for the candidates directly. You're voting for electors in the Electoral College. When they get together in December to cast their votes, they presumably know which Donald Trump and Kamala Harris they're voting for. Similarly, when Congress certifies the Electoral College votes in January, they know precisely who the candidates are.

We all saw them campaigning for months, there's no ambiguity. If there are other citizens with the same names, they didn't file with the Federal Election Commission, so they wouldn't be legitimate candidates.