> I read in the newspaper today that some of the electors plan on voting for their candidate regardless of how the people of their states vote. (They interviewed one elector from Michigan who said he'd vote for Gore no matter what.) If that happens, I withdraw whatever positive statements about the system I may ever have made.
>
> > It's entirely undemocratic.
> >
> > The votes of the vast majority of the people in southern and eastern Oregon, while cast for Bush, will almost certainly all count towards Gore. The votes of the vast majority of the people in Eugene, while cast for Nader, will almost certainly all count towards Gore. According to the polls (bah) California is a toss-up, but whoever wins the country's most populous state, even by a tiny margin, gets the whole state's votes.
> >
> > Elections should be done by popular vote, not by state. While it is exceedingly unlikely that one candidate will receive more votes while the other wins, it has happened before. The system ought to be fixed before it happens again.
> >
> > gab"soap box for sale"by

Well, from my understanding, the election by states vote for the electors. If Gore, for an example, were to take a state the people the Gore campaine picked as electors votes will be counted as the states votes.

They pick these people far ahead of time, and they have every right, after they agree to be electors, to vote how ever they want.

So one of Bush's electors, if Bush takes his state, still has every right to vote for Gore. Maybe, in the last hours before he votes, he finds out Bush ran over his puppy two years ago and decided that, even though he said he would vote for Bush he will now vote for Gore.

This rarely happenes, they tend to pick real die hards to be the electors.

I may be way off base on this, this is what I remeber from seventh grade, which was what, nine years ago? I'm sure Sam can correct me.

Speed'talking even though he doesn't really know what he is talking about'ball