This is topic What if George W. Bush loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college again? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Well then we'd once again have a President without a clear mandate, if congress shifted parties then we could have a serious stand-still, if they stay Republican than the lack of a mandate will probably matter less.
Hobbes Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, Adam, you have to remember Kerry will win huge in MA, CN, NY, and California.
I think its unlikely we see another popular/electoral split unless HORDES of angry voters turn out.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Chances of that happening were slim to none the first time. 2000 was such a weird election.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
For one, Book is correct it will not happen again, very very unlikely. For another, if it does, it will not be like remotely it was last time, the question never was really of the electoral college, that's constitutionally mandated- and that's the highest law of the land and it's not about to change, but more of Florida's badly goofed up voting systems.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Sadly it appears Florida is still not caught up yet and there's lots of problems.
4 Hurricane's probably didn't help much either.
Let's hope that whoever wins is by a margin that won't have so many "theories" and "anger" popping out of it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Agreed. I find myself hoping for a landslide, just to avoid all the recriminations afterwards.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think that kind of "divided" the country right from the get go in a way (if not other things later, it set the tone at least) and it really wasn't anyones "fault" but the voting system itself.
I think it will be easier for the people of the country to "get behind" the victor if there's a clear winner.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
if Bush wins a clear cut victory...
I say more power to him.
He's President, we elected him, we deserve him.
...but if he loses the popular vote and wins the electoral college, it is all a sham.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
In 21 years, I never figured out just what the "electoral college" votes were. Now I know. I feel so proud of myself for figuring it out.
Just be glad you only have 50-odd of those buggers to deal with. I think we're up to 308 or 315 or something up here. And we don't even get to vote directly. (err... Comparing electoral college votes with the seats in parliament.)
[ October 13, 2004, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
If the election does work out to be the exact opposite of the last one — with the popular vote going to Bush and the electoral vote going to Kerry — I'd be interested to see how both sides handle the situation, compared with last time.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I like the current system. The Supreme Court appoints the President, the President appoints Supreme Court Justices.
Now if only we could do away with the whole facade of the election...
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"If the election does work out to be the exact opposite of the last one — with the popular vote going to Bush and the electoral vote going to Kerry — I'd be interested to see how both sides handle the situation, compared with last time."
Regardless of who wins, I really hope this doesn't happen again. Being a war president is hard enough. But a war president without popular support?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
What I mean is, I heard a lot of "Gore is a sore loser" from the right, and a lot of "Bush stole the election contrary to the will of the people" from the left. I'm just wondering what those same exact people will say in the reverse situation. If Kerry wins the electoral vote, and not the popular vote, will the left suddenly see that as a perfectly legitimate way to win an election? And if Bush loses the electoral vote, while winning the popular, will he be as gracious as the right expected Gore to be? I wonder ...
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
For those concerned with popular and electoral victories going to opponents, I have a question. Do you think it would be better for the nation as a whole if your own preferred candidate were to lose so this wouldn't happen? That is, accepting as fact that your preferred candidate will lose the popular vote, do you think the country would be better served by him losing the electoral vote as well, so as to avoid "splitting" the country? Or do you believe that even without the popular mandate, your candidate will be better for the welfare of the nation?
<Hopes the question is clear.>
--Pop
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Supreme Court did not appoint the President of the United States.
You know, having flip-flop (heh) election in which Bush loses the Elec. but wins the pop. would be deliciously frustrating.
Now I think he will be more gracious than Gore was, simply because that's the only option he and the Republican party has. But if it hadn't happened to him before? I don't think he'd be very gracious at all.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:For those concerned with popular and electoral victories going to opponents, I have a question. Do you think it would be better for the nation as a whole if your own preferred candidate were to lose so this wouldn't happen? That is, accepting as fact that your preferred candidate will lose the popular vote, do you think the country would be better served by him losing the electoral vote as well, so as to avoid "splitting" the country? Or do you believe that even without the popular mandate, your candidate will be better for the welfare of the nation?
I would want my candidate to win. If we wanted the popular vote to decide the president then we'd set the Constitution up that way, but we haven't, so it doesn't and shouldn't.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I'd laugh. Hard.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I'd like to think at this time, none of us would be surprised by the outcome, since we went through this the last time. But in this age of self victimization, there would be great wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth and protests of unfairness.
Personally, I don't think it will be as close as it was the last time.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
If he did? It would be kinda weird being the president who went 8 years without ever being "elected".
If he wins the same way this time, what will he say during his victory speech? "Thank you for giving me the privilage of being your president for another four years?" No, not if the country, fairly, chose the other guy.
I have to agree with Thor here. I want someone to just win and have it be over with.
--j_k
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
With a race this close, who ever wins must try to heal the divisions in this country. There will be no mandate, so pretending there is will only anger those who did not vote for you, and create more ill will and bad feelings. Half the people in the country can not be completely wrong, so whoever squeezes in with a victory had best remember that.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:...but if he loses the popular vote and wins the electoral college, it is all a sham.
That does not make the election a sham. The Electoral College might be an imperfect system, but it is a system both parties had agreed to before the results came out.
quote:What I mean is, I heard a lot of "Gore is a sore loser" from the right, and a lot of "Bush stole the election contrary to the will of the people" from the left.
I don't think Bush stole the election because he didn't win the popular vote. My objections against Bush's victory is based on stuff like this:
quote:This is Database Technologies. This is the company that the state of Florida hired to remove the names of people who committed serious crimes from the voter lists.
I have obtained a document marked "confidential and trade secret". It says the company was paid millions of dollars to make telephone calls to verify they got the right names - but they didn't.
There is nothing in the state of Florida files that says they made these telephone calls. So the question remains, why did the Republican leaders of this state pay millions for a list that stopped thousands of innocent Democrats from voting?
The first list from DBT included 8,000 names from Texas supplied by George Bush's state officials. They said they were all felons, serious criminals barred from voting. As it turns out, almost none were. Local officials raised a ruckus and DBT issued a new list naming 58,000 felons. But the one county which went through the whole expensive process of checking the new list name by name found it was still 95% wrong.
***
[Database Technologies'] vice-president told us that "manual verification by telephone calls" does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. So were they paid to produce a list which they knew would name thousands of innocent black people? In fact DBT told Newsnight that Clayton Roberts and the State of Florida:
"... wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon."
***
Clayton Roberts [a Republican], the director of Florida's division of elections:
"We did not call and say did you check the list again... the whole tenor of this is like OK you screwed up you didn't check with DBT and if you want to hang this on me that's fine. It is certainly fine for George W Bush. Even if investigators conclude that Jeb Bush and the Republicans conspired to steal this election, the man in that house for the next four years will be George W Bush."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)