Not sure I understand this. If CA, IL, and NJ have ALREADY PASSED laws that the state's electoral votes (electors) must go to the winner of the popular vote (" a scheme by which a state’s electors would go to the candidate winning the national popular vote.
Sadly, from California to Illinois to New Jersey, it has passed in eight states and the District of Columbia, totaling 132 electoral votes.")
and Romney wins the popular vote next Tuesday doesn't that mean that Romney wins those states' electoral votes? And therefore Romney would win California, IL, NJ and DC? What an irony!
As Tuesday’s election ticks ever nearer, my fervent wish is a solid electoral college win for Mitt Romney. Not to get greedy, but I’d like it in the bag before the wee hours of Wednesday morning.
I hope this is not asking too much. October’s poll swing and a broadening visceral sense tell me this election may not feature the nail-biting closeness we have been told to expect for months.
But if we are to be ensnared by a down-to-the-wire finish, get ready for the attendant micro-focus on the Electoral College, and the resulting debate over whether it should...
Use you brains people. I find it silly that people think we are so much smarter than the founding fathers were .They understood every one of these arguments and the risks involved-far better than many here apparently do.