I was reminded by this thread in the GQ forum that technically, it is possible for an Elector in the Electoral College to cast his or her votes differently than what their state’s general election results would dictate. In fact it happens in almost every US presidential election. No such “faithless elector” has ever changed the outcome of a presidential election, however, so it has been more or less in the realm of making a symbolic gesture (or apparently, a clerical error).
It’s rare because, as Wikipedia puts it, Political parties choose their slate of electors in each state, and they generally select party members with a reputation for high loyalty to the party and its candidate. Moreover, a faithless elector runs a risk of censure and other political retaliation from his party.
Now the 2008 election saw President-Elect Obama (a) win his party’s nomination quite narrowly over Hillary Clinton, and (b) win the presidential election by a large margin of Electoral Votes over the Republican nominee, McCain (365 to 173). It therefore seems highly likely to me that among these “highly loyal party members” designated as state Electors we will see at least one of them cast a symbolic vote of Hillary Clinton for President. If that were to happen, she would be the first woman ever to receive an Electoral Vote for the highest office in the nation (though a woman has received an Electoral Vote for VP at least once before)… And surely among those 365 “loyal Democrats”, one of them is a Hillary supporter would would like to see her make that particular bit of U.S. history?
Anybody want to hazard a guess, or a range? Zero? One? Two? Double-digits, even?
I’m going to go with more than 1, but not more than 5. Let’s say, oh, four.