Quote:

"Faithless Electors" usually aren't trying to change the outcome of an election. Often it's just a "favorite son" thing.

The Republican Electors were selected by the McCain camp, not by Palin's people, are going to loyal to McCain. A switch to Palin isn't likely since the McCain & Palin camps don't like each other at all.

If a switch of that sort does occur it's more likely to be on the winning side, an Obama elector voting for Hillary Clinton (not necessarily as a protest but instead to make her the first woman to receive a vote for President in the College, if it hasn't happened before).



Actually, most faithless electors are from the losing side, like the 2 in the last elections and the 1 I cited who voted for Reagan in 1976. [also 1988, 1960, 1956, and every one of the 19th century]

The only electors pledged to the eventual winner to go faithless were in 1948, 1968 & 1972. Two of these went to segregation supporters in protest [1948 Truman vote went to Strum Thurman, a 1968 Nixon vote went to Wallace].

The 1972 vote is interesting in that the Nixon vote went to the Libertarians, whose VP candidate was a woman. Thus she was the 1st to get an electoral vote.

With the limited vetting McCain has done of his people, I can't see your confidence in McCain's camp. And, even if loyal, with the electric effect Palin has on a faction of the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if one went "maverick"/"rogue"/whatever and voted for Palin in defeat with an eye on the future.

btw, it wouldn't surprise me if someone did that in an Obama defeat for Hill. As noted, in each of the last 2 elections, someone left the Democratic herd.

But, Obama does win, it would surprise me to see a "Hillary" vote.
_________________________
Amo i Gemelli!! wink