----My only point was that Constitutionally the Electors are not Bound to vote for the same person or party that their constituents voted for.----
In 26 states, they are, but otherwise, you're right; this West Virgina elector is entirely within his rights to cast his ballot for whomever he wishes.
That isn't the point, though, and was not the foundation of the Republicans' pro-electoral college stance in 2000 (and before and since). The point is that for an elector to vote contrary to the the outcome of the election in his state, regardless of whether he can do so or not, is a betrayal of the people of that state. There's a reason that 26 states have laws binding the electors to vote for their party's candidate -- and while it may be legal in the other 24, the practice is still very, very unethical.
I did not think it was right in 2000 when that D.C. delegate withheld her electoral vote. Yes, she was within her rights to do so (I think), but it was also a rebuke of the wishes of D.C. voters -- and if the other two delegates had also chosen to withhold their votes, then the voters of D.C. would have been truly disenfranchised -- as a pracitical, if not a legal manner -- because their votes for President would have been rendered completely irrelevant. (It is ironic, then, that the abstaining D.C. delegate withheld her vote in order to protest the District's lack of representation in Congress.)
Likewise, if all of the West Virginia delegates (I cannot believe that the state GOP simply chose the gubernatorial runner-ups) follow Robb's lead and decide "what the hell, even if Bush wins our state, we're not gonna vote for him", then the Bush voters of West Virginia have just had their ballots for President negated. They might as well just sleep in on November 2nd.
And again, there was no comparable sentiment on the Republican side in 2000; no organized campaign to get Gore electors to switch their vote to Bush. Exactly the opposite, as I recall.
-Dan