it's slate of electors. Each state constitution requires that the outcome of the popular vote determines the slate of electors (the one exception, I believe, is Maine). If a state does not abide by its state constitution, its slate can simply be discounted by the Electoral College, which is presided over by the Vice President of the United States....

From Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3, of the Constitution:

"...and they [meaning the electors, the party of which has previously been decided as a result of the outcome of the popular vote (except Maine)] shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and the Number of Votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify; and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (Joe Biden). The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all of the Certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be President, if such Number shall be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed, and if there be more than one that have such majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot; one of them for President." (emphasis added)

I am going to stop quoting here to make a point. I believe any state that refuses to participate as mentioned in the thread above, is disqualified from having a slate of electors counted in the official count over which the Vice President presides.

Those states deliberately not participating are in violation of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, which violation does not give the legislatures of those state the right to rewrite the rules enumerated in our Constitution in order to effectuate the selection of a candidate not property elected by the laws in place.

What should happen then is those slates would be discarded and the number of votes required to be President would be a majority of those officially counted. When the language in the U.S. Constitution says the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such a number be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed, that only includes the slates in the official count, not the other electors votes who were not forwarded to the President of the Senate as required by the highest law of the land. Whoever devised this scheme is counting those electors in the whole number, but it seems to me their participation is thrown out because the rules of the Constitution were deliberately violated.

How does one plan to violate the Constitution and win by rewriting the rules? If Romney's slates of the electors are not forwarded to be included in the official count, the only ones the Vice-President presiding over the Senate receives would be those for President Obama (plus the slate forwarded by Maine, assuming that state is participating).

Can you say "Safe Harbor?"

Furthermore, there is zero wiggle room to change a state constitution after an election but before the Electoral College vote. Just thought I would mention that before I see someone suggest it. Any changes to a state constitution from hereon out would become applicable to the next election, not this one.

Sam