[DiogenesLamp]

I guess you didn't understand. Being excluded is meaningless because he wasn't legally on any ballots in 2008 and he won't be on any ballots in 2012. We vote for electors because that's how all the States choose electors. Such electors do not even have to be chosen by vote. A State could choose to have its governor appoint the electors or even choose them by lot. The chosen electors are the ones who vote for President. Read the Constitution.

ML/NJ

From your post it is evident that one of us didn't understand. I am completely aware that the only election which counts is the one authorized by our constitution, that being of the Electoral college. What you aren't grasping is that our system has evolved over time in an extra-constitutional manner into a de facto one of direct election by voters. This is how the people of America see it. Sure, many of them are aware of the Electoral college, but for the vast bulk of them this is an abstract.

Americans BELIEVE that they are voting for a President, and depriving his name from the ballot, while being symbolic, will have REAL WORLD consequences. (They will vote for the opposition electors, or perhaps stay home.)

Electors ARE chosen by popular ballot, and the question is whether or not Obama's electors will be chosen, or his oppositions.

Symbolically keeping Obama's name off a ballot in any state (for not presenting appropriate credentials) will create a media fire storm and likewise seriously damage his appeal in all the other states as well.

[ml/nj]

Symbolically keeping Obama's name off a ballot in any state (for not presenting appropriate credentials)

DNC lawyers would argue that his name really isn't on the ballot and argue for dismissal of any suit to keep him off it, and they would probably prevail.

ML/NJ