Hmmm... I think I need to weigh in here. As a conservative (NOT a Bush supporter) I disagree with much that Big Mick has expressed: But I support his right to say, and work for those things.

If Nader does gat any electorial votes, he can direct his electors to vote for whomever he wants to get the votes. After the firat ballot, if there are no clear winners, I believe that the electors can vote for whoever they wish.

A better method, available without a change to the Constitution, would be for states to split their EC votes by the percent of population that voted for each candidate. Now why haven't all the Dems been out there pushing that? Perhaps because they would lose as many votes in "solid" states as they would gain in the others.

It is my opinion that, regardless of Nader, the Democrats will lose this election ( barring more stupid moves by Bush*) because they are not running anyone FOR president- just against Bush.

*Specifically, the whole fuss about marriage. Those who agree with him would have voted for him regardles, and he has alienated som part of the vast middle that will determmine the election. Regardless of his views, he should have just kept quiet about the whole thing.