The Election Law Blog has this post, linking to a compendium of laws concerning presidential electors. Some states have laws instructing presidential electors to vote in a certain way. Sometimes these laws instruct the electors to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular votes in their state. Sometimes they tell the electors to vote for that elector’s party. In three states, electors who “disobey” are deemed to have resigned and be replaced by their fellow state’s electors.

These laws are deficient for many reasons. Many of them do not recognize that independent presidential electors might have been elected; the laws just assume that any presidential electors must be party nominees.

The laws of only three states (California, Hawaii, and Wisconsin) recognize a presidential or vice-presidential nominee might have died before the electoral college meets, and excuse electors who vote differently in that instance. Major party nominees for president or vice-president, whose names were on all November ballots, have twice died before the electors met. Those instances were in 1912 (when the Republican vice-presidential nominee died in October) and 1872 (when the Democratic presidential nominee died in November).

Some state laws don’t specify whether the elector is supposed to vote for his or her state party’s nominee, or his or her party’s national convention nominee. Sometimes state parties don’t nominate the national convention choice. The most recent instance was in 1968, when the Alabama Democratic Party said its presidential nominee was George Wallace, even though the Democratic national convention had chosen Hubert Humphrey. Other instances for the major parties were in 1964, 1948, 1912, and 1836.

Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina say a disobedient elector is deemed to have resigned. Michigan and Nebraska laws don’t explain how such electors may be replaced. North Carolina law says the remaining electors shall fill the vacancy, but this won’t work if the entire slate of electors “disobeys.” If they are all deemed to have resigned, there is no one left to appoint new electors.

The New York times has this op-ed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, advocating instant runoff voting.

On October 5, the only general election U.S. Senate debate in California this year took place. Because voters must vote for either Loretta Sanchez, or Kamala Harris (both Democrats), or not vote at all, obviously they were the only two candidates invited. Press reaction to the debate was virtually unanimous. See Joe Mathews’ commentary here. See the Calbuzz story here. It is titled “Kamala versus Loretta, the worst debate in history.” The CNN story is amusing and is here. Finally, here is a TIME news story.