I was asking people, if that were to happen, and it meant that Kerry was President, how would you reat? And if it happened and it meant that Bush was President, how would you react?
And would you react differently in one case than the other? Would you argue that it should be accepted in the one case and opposed in the other? ...............................
I gather, through a US Goerment website, that there is a legal obligation on electors to vote for the candidate who gets most votes in their state, in about half the states. Whether that means their votes would be invalidated if they went the "wrong" way, or just that they could be charged with some kind of offence is an interesting point. In the remainder of the state there is no formal legal obligation about which way to vote.
Perhaps unduly cynically, I suspect, in the light of how things went last time, that the decison of the Supreme Court on such matters might be coloured by the impact of their decision on the outcome of the election.
I think there would be a lot to be said for sorting out these matters outside of the context of real elections elections, to avoid the suspicion of distortion. For example why couldn't decisions about when to carry on counting votes and so forth have been considered and determined in a situation where noone could know which side would be helped by a particular ruling?