I (think I) remember reading an article about a person in the electoral college that has said that he/she will not vote for Bush regardless of the state’s voting totals.
Is that really happening or was that a figment of my imagination?
Well, that person would only get the chance if the voters in her state supplied a majority for Bush. Otherwise some other dude will be voting for Kerry in her place.
Since the electors are appointed by the state party, the party can just select another person to replace the obstinate one. See here for more details. 
In addition, 21 of the states have laws that legally bind the electors to vote for the correct person.
The electors are chosen in the November election, so there IS no one “in the electoral college” until then. If Bush wins West Virginia, however, Mayor Richie Robb of South Charleston has expressed doubts about his vote: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04284/392803.stm
They most certainly could not. An elector can’t be replaced after being nominated and elected based only on his or her vote, or on how he or she is threatening to vote.
State laws binding electors to their party nominees are of dubious constitutionality and would be difficult to enforce. (Even if you send the faithless elector to jail, he or she has still cast the offending vote.) The worst that Congress would be likely to do would be to throw out a faithless vote altogether (although they explicitly declined to do so in 1969), which would still deprive Bush of a vote.
:: Hands Nametag the winning Cupie Doll ::
That was what I was thinking of. Thanks!
It’s worth pointing out that the mayor in question has said he would abstain if he chooses not to vote for Bush. Since he wouldn’t cast a vote for Kerry, the most he could do is cause the election to go to the house of reps. In which case Bush would win anyway.