Slate: Five ways the election could end up in court, again.

[crispini]

A useful summary, with details.

http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108339&

Nightmare Scenario No. 1: Litigation Following Voting Glitch

Nightmare Scenario No. 2: Litigation Over Whose Vote Counts

Nightmare Scenario No. 3: Litigation Over Colorado's Amendment 36

Nightmare Scenario No. 4: Electoral College Woes in Congress

Nightmare Scenario No. 5: Terrorist Attack That Disrupts Voting

[shockingelk]

1. doesn't TeamBush hav a plan for the popular vote?

In 2000, it was said they had a plan in place if Bush won the popular vote but lost the EV.

[carnival]

2. What Liberal Media

This is an exert from Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?"

"In the days before the election, the Bush team and a few sympahtetic pundits began to worry that Gore might actually outpoll Bush in the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote. In a New York Daily News article entitled, "Bush Set to Fight and Electoral College Loss," Bush operatives explained, "The one thing we don't do is roll over. We fight." In league with the campaign -- which was already preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness -- a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," said a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted." Local business leaders would be urged to lobby their customers, the Bush aide explained; members of the clergy would be asked to speak up for the "popular will," and pro-Bush Democrats would be urged "to scream as loud as they can. You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asked a Bush advisor. CNN commentator Jeff Greenfield reported that conservative pundits were already being briefed "shortly before taking to the airwaves about the line of attack to be taken in the event that Bush wound up losing the electoral count despite a popular vote lead. The denials of Bush advisor Karl Rove notwithstanding, friend of the campaign Ken Duberstein admitted, "It was part of the talking points." (Gore officials, the same article noted, were making no such plans.) Chris Matthews, too, worried of Gore that, "knowing him as we do, may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush."

at page 175-76. One thing Kerry has to worry about is winning 270-268 or maybe 271-268 and having one or more Kerry electors be unfaithful, throwing the election to the likely Republican house of representatives (or to Bush directly, if they switch the vote to Bush). Remember, under the electoral college, the electors actually cast a vote, and are not compelled by any law to cast the vote for the candidate that carried the state. The recent history (post-WWII) of unfaithful electors is:

2000 - A Democratic elector from Washington DC abstained.
1988 - A Democratic West Virginia elector cast her vote for Lloyd Bentsen, reportedly to call attention to the fact that electors were allowed to vote however they pleased in hopes of spurring reform. It didn't work.
1976 - A Republican elector from California voted for Ronald Reagan. He was four years early.
1972 - A republican elector from Virginia voted for John Hospers, the Libertarian Party candidate. This is the only electoral college vote ever received by a Libertarian Party presidential nominee.
1960 - Senator Harry F. Byrd received 8 votes from Mississippi, 6 votes from Alabama and 1 vote from Oklahoma. Kennedy had carried Alabama, Nixon had carried Oklahoma and Unpledged Democratic Electors carried Mississippi.
1956 - One Democratic Alabama elector voted for Walter Jones, a local judge.