Jeff Greenfield is a senior analyst for CNN. He is providing Web-exclusive analysis for CNN allpolitics.com during Election 2000.

Jeff Greenfield: A time bomb in parchment

By Jeff Greenfield/CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every four years, the press reminds the public that they will not really be voting for president when they go to the polls, they will be voting for "electors" -- the men and women who will actually choose the president when they go to their state Capitols a month after the polls close.

It's a charming bit of nostalgia, a throwback to the days when the Founders didn't really trust the people -- Hamilton's "great beast"-- to choose the president on their own.

It's also a time bomb, buried in the parchment of the Constitution -- and this year, the time bomb could blow up in our faces.

Could it really be that the candidate who got the most popular votes would be the loser in the Electoral College? Well, it happened in 1876, when a corrupt congressional bargain gave disputed electoral votes to Rutherford Hayes, even though Samuel Tilden won more votes. And it happened in 1888, when President Grover Cleveland ran about 100,000 votes ahead of Benjamin Harrison, thanks to big majorities in the South, while Harrison captured big states like New York by narrow margins.

But those were far less "democratic" days. Senators weren't chosen by popular vote, women couldn't vote in many states and blacks were disenfranchised throughout the South. But today, imagine what would happen if Vice President Al Gore got a million votes more than George Bush, while Bush was declared the victor. Would the voters stand for it?

We almost found out in 1976; Jimmy Carter ran 1.7 million votes ahead of President Ford; but if fewer than 15,000 voters in Ohio and Mississippi had changed their minds, Ford would have won a majority in the Electoral College.

This year? Well, imagine Gore winning big in New York, California, and Illinois, while Bush wins narrowly in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Or imagine Bush wins big in the South, while Gore carries the "battleground" states by razor-thin margins. Either way, the public, which (it is safe to say, is not fully focused on the mechanics of the Electoral College) is likely to wake up in a state of shock.

And then what? Well, partisans of the popular vote winner might urge electors on the other side to vote for the people's choice. Since electors are usually party loyalists, this is a long shot, but if some electors did switch, there's no way to stop them. Some states have laws punishing so-called "faithless electors," but that wouldn't stop them from casting their votes across the aisles.

Then the question would be: will the new Congress, meeting in early January to certify the votes, accept such "faithless" votes? That could well depend on which party then controls the Congress. And if those votes were thrown out and no candidate won an electoral majority, it would be up to the House of Representatives to choose -- under a process so complicated and bizarre, I will not inflict it on you.

One consequence of such a blowup is certain: At long last, the Electoral College would either be abolished or radically altered.

So stay tuned -- you know how Yogi Berra says "it ain't over 'til it's over"? This year, it may not be over until after it's over.