Hasn’t Al Gore already denied and disavowed any claim that he, personally, would try to corrupt the Electoral College? Didn’t he arrange a special prime time statement weeks ago so he could deny any attempt to corrupt the Electoral College? Didn’t he tell the world that he would never accept a switch vote from someone supposedly committed to vote the other way; i.e., against him?

And aren’t we already getting statements from loyal democratic soldiers like Mario Cuomo talking about how many times Electoral College members have switched their vote in the past?

Let’s treat these as symptoms of what’s to come and play some “what if” games.

The Electoral College ground rules

Right now, the only thing we can be sure of is that George W. Bush should have 246 Electoral votes and Al Gore 267 votes, assuming Gore has Oregon’s seven. If George W. holds onto Florida’s 25 Electoral votes, then he has 271 of the total 538 and is the clear winner, but only by a small margin.

It is possible to win with only 270 votes, the opponent getting 268. It is also possible to tie at 269 votes each, in which case Congress must decide with the House of Representatives picking the President and the Senate picking the Vice President.

It’s worth noting, at this point, that if it comes down to a vote in the House, such a vote is done on the basis of one vote for each state—one state, one vote. This is the only way smaller states have an advantage over, or are at least on a par with, the more heavily populated states. In other words, a state like North Dakota, with only one representative in the House would have the same vote as California with its 54 representatives. The latter having to caucus and decide how they’re going to cast their one vote.

Such a vote would be cast by the new 107th Congress and Bush would hold a lead with 28 republican majority states to 18 democratic and 4 tied. Thus, Gore can't win a tie vote of the Electoral College. And he needs at least three defectors to ensure that this does not occur.

There are currently 538 total Electoral College votes determined by congressional districts plus two senate votes for each state. This is all in line with the 435 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 Senators, plus three votes for the District of Columbia granted by the 23rd Amendment.

Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, split their vote. The other 48 states as well as the District of Columbia follow the “winner takes all” policy. Whoever won the popular vote in that state should receive all Electoral College votes of the state.

Maine and Nebraska split their Electoral votes on the basis of one vote for each congressional district (the popular vote in that district) plus two “at large” or senatorial votes for whoever won the statewide popular vote. The result can be several combinations, but it’s pretty hard for anyone to deviate.

The important thing to grasp is that of the majority of states where “winner takes all,” there are only 24 states, plus the District of Columbia, firmly committed to this policy by state law. With these states, once the Electoral College slate of members are certified and sent to the National Archives, these all republican or all democratic slates/votes will not change. Gore holds 13 of these states with a total of 150 Electoral votes. Bush has 12 with a total of 131 Electoral votes. These cannot change.

The remaining 24 states are not bound by state law to cast their vote for a specific candidate. These states are (with Electoral votes in parentheses): Arizona (8), Arkansas (6), Delaware (3), Georgia (13), Idaho (4), Illinois (22), Indiana (12), Iowa (7), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Minnesota (10), Missouri (11), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New York (33), North Dakota (3), Pennsylvania (23), Rhode Island (4), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (32), Utah (5), and West Virginia (5). This is a grand total of 257 Electoral votes not bound by law to the “winner takes all” principle. Individual electors within each state could deviate from the popular vote of their state. It has happened seven or eight times in our history, but seldom more than one member deviating per election.

Right now, Bush holds 16 of these 24 states while Gore has eight. With 257 Electoral votes at stake, Gore should hold 117 Electoral votes and Bush 140 under the “winner take all” rule. However, these are the states not bound by law to hold to that rule.

Remember, Al Gore needs three switching votes to win and a tie does him no good at all. Three republican electors must cross over to Gore. On the other hand, there could possibly be so many democrats upset with Gore’s obstinacy that some of his own democrats may vote against him.So he might really need more than three crossovers.

There is also the possibility that "unfaithful" electors do not make a complete switch but, in effect, nullify their vote. This could happen by voting for Nader, Buchanan, or simply voting "present." It could happen in different combinations, but the number Gore would need to win would then be four. Three such defectors not giving him their vote would result in a tie at 268 apiece.

What if

If the current decision pending with the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't go Gore's way, and he still doesn't concede, we can be almost certain that he's going for the unprecedented possibility of corrupting at least three Electoral College members slated to vote for Bush. It would be the arrogant act of a true megalomaniac.

Also, if there is truly something underhanded afoot, Gore’s teams would be concentrating on the 15 republican slates currently in the National Archives from the states not bound by law to follow the popular vote in their state. The dirty tricks teams would be out gathering whatever dirt they could dig up on any of these 135 members of the Electoral College so they could have someone, probably a close friend, approach these members with a threat/deal or simply a “get rich” scheme.

(Friend): “Hey Charlie, you and I have been friends for a long time haven’t we? Even though I’m a democrat and you’re a republican, we still get along well don’t we? And didn’t we have a ball at the convention last summer? You know you can trust me. I’ll never tell. I’d never do anything to jeopardize our friendship. But tell me Charlie, what would it really take to get you to change your vote in the Electoral College? Would you do it for a million dollars? How about two million? Hell, how about five million? Do you have an account in Switzerland or the Cayman’s? What if I could arrange it for you? And we’ll have another secret just between us.”

Be honest now. What would you do if a close friend said that to you? And wouldn’t it be money well spent for a wealthy megalomaniac whose lifetime goal depends on it?

Suppose further, that the entire situation in Florida may be deliberately drawn out for no other purpose than to lend credibility to the idea that normal people might switch their votes? To make it seem reasonable that at least three of the Electoral College members were so upset by citizen’s votes not being counted, blamed the republicans and changed their votes. Even though it may not have started out that way, dragging Florida’s controversy to the bitter end certainly makes such defection seem reasonable, doesn’t it? All the weeks of wrangling in Florida could have been nothing but a diversion and means to make unusual Electoral College vote switching palatable to the public. How much do you trust Al Gore???