text: Last but not least the disaster factor. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. In 1960 segregationnists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. In the same vein, "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their partys candidate and cast a deciding vote for whoever they please. What happens if a state sends two slates of electors to congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the senate, validated only his opponents electors. The most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote in that case the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president and The Senate would choose the vice-president. Each state only casts one vote that means the single representatives from Wyoming representing 500,000 voters would have as much say as California who represents 35 million voters. An electoral tie seems unlikely think of this: In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976 a tie would have occured if 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted diffrently. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.