As things stand now, there is not even any Constitutional requirement that an elector must vote for the candidate who got a plurality of the popular vote. (Yes, all that it takes is a plurality, not even a true majority.)
So-called “faithless electors” have voted for whoever they damn well pleased, throughout American history. Some 24 states now have laws punishing faithless electors–but in the other states, an elector can vote cockeyed just for the heck of it.
How democratic is that?
And in 2000, that could have happened. The FL election recount was so close and so uncertain that there was a real possibility that some electors could just ignore the whole thing and vote for whoever they wanted.
And as others have already pointed out, the “winner take all” rule–which is not a Constitutional requirement but just happens to be the way states do things–totally disenfranchises voters who are living in states which routinely vote the other way. I live in MA, so I might as well not bother to vote for President. Obama is going to win MA in 2012, barring some total electoral catastrophe. Conversely, a Democrat living in Idaho or Utah might as well not bother to vote for Obama–those states’ electors aren’t going to go for Obama.
