Electors aren't bound to vote for the candidate who won their state.
Not by federal law. But some states do require their electors to vote for the candidate that they were selected to vote for. On the first ballot, anyway.
Enough that simply having all the Rat electors switch isn't a winning option.
And replacing a name on the ballot is something that cannot be done in all states legally or extra-legally.
IMO, the Toricelli option ended when Kerry threw that sloppy salute in Boston the other week.
Still, if Bush carries 40+ states, it won't matter what sort of nonsense the Dems try.
If it's not close, they can't cheat. (Good book!)
If the candidate named on the ballot is unavailable, the party will tell the electors who to vote for, and they will. There have been a few electors that flouted the law, BTW, but the deviation did not determine the election, and the electors were not punished.
Still, if Bush carries 40+ states, it won't matter what sort of nonsense the Dems try.
Yes. True. In order for a switch to work, the party pulling the switch still has to obtain a majority of the electoral votes.
Wasn't there a Democrat lawyer who was caught trying to influence the Republican electors in 2000? I seem to recall someone trying a blackmail or other such Rat technique...