Warp wrote:
>   Why didn't that happen in 2000?

It was a different argument. I don't think there was a tie of electoral 
votes. There was a problem with the popular votes in a couple of states. 
There's really only (approximately) one electoral vote per person in the 
house and senate, so on the order of 550 votes, which would be trivial to 
recount.

I think the argument in 2000 was that the votes for some states got messed 
up, and they wanted to take the election again, and the court said "no, you 
have to use the election you have, because everyone is required to vote on 
the same day."   I honestly didn't really follow the whole ruckus.

>   Sounds rather complicated. Especially if it could happen that the person
> who people voted to vote for them changes his mind and votes for someone
> else.

Yep. It's messy.

Indeed, in at least one election (Lincoln, I think), one of the electors 
cast one of his votes against the winning party, since that elector figured 
that George Washington should be the only president unanimously elected.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message