One candidate wins the popular vote. Another candidate wins the Electoral College. What happens?
( Subscribe | Discussion summary )

Steve M.- 12:09 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.
It happened in 1876 and 1888, and the E.C. winner went to the White House each time. Would we put up with a result like that now? Or would popular outrage pressure the electors (who are legally free to vote however they please) to echo the popular vote?

I think the more interesting question is, what would happen if no one won 270 Electoral College votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 12:14 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #2 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

>Would we put up with a result like that now?

We'd have no choice; it's the law. You see, the popular vote is a fiction, in a way: the Electoral College does indeed determine who wins the election. It's a fail-safe to prevent the electorate from actually sending someone like, say, George W. Bush to the White House. Unfortunately, it didn't prevent the Reagan Administration. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:16 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #3 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Well, that's interesting, though it won't happen this year (if Perot couldn't even win a state in two tries, Nader sure won't), and I think the scenario I'm suggesting really could happen. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 12:21 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #4 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

Absolutely it could happen. Mississippi's recent gubernatorial contest went to the state House O' Representatives when neither candidate won a majority of the vote. So it's conceivable that the presidential election could similarly be put before the U.S. House. Of course, I trust that the vote would be thrown to the Democrat-majority House that will be seated in 2001.

All this was said, of course, without referring to the Constitution, wherein all answers lie. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:22 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #5 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

We'd have no choice; it's the law.

So the electors have some leeway. Which is why I ask whether they would be pressured to follow the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 12:24 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #6 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

What I meant was that we'd have to accept the vote of the Electoral College. Wasn't that your question? And they may be pressured but, like you just said, they can vote any way they want to...there's precedent to boot. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 12:25 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #7 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

In Mississippi, neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote, and state law required that it go to the state House of Reps. But a few states had no candidate win 50% in the 1992 presidential election, and the electors simply voted for the plurality winner -- which made sense, because the E.C. and popular vote winners were the same person, Bill Clinton. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by Steve M. on 12:26 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:26 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #9 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

What I meant was that we'd have to accept the vote of the Electoral College.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SGeorge - 12:27 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #10 of 773
gee dumbja the undiscovered candidate

It depends on how the Electoral College votes. Now if Gore wins all states by a small margin and gee dumbja win states by a large margin but gore has 271 gee dumbja loses. Gore will win with both EC and popular. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Gentry - 12:31 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #11 of 773
Doctor, I want Prilosec, it's the purple pill! ... What does it do again?

The electors are bound in several states. However, the scenario of conflicting popular and electoral votes has happened in the past.

1824 of course, is the most obvious, with Adams winning only 31% to his opponents 41.3%. Neither received the requisite electors and it was decided by the House of Representatives.

In 1876, Tilden received more than 50% of the vote, but the electoral commission recognized Hayes electors from three disputed states, therefore electing him in the EC.

In 1888, Harrison received 47.8% of the popular vote and his opponent received 48.6. Harrison of course, won the EC. (Third place got 2.2% and fourth got 1.3%) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 12:35 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #12 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Great article on some of the mathematical underpinnings of the electoral college. 
(BOOKMARK)

David Sallis - 12:36 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #13 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

But isn't there a slight temporal discontinuity in your question? How can we know how the College will vote (and hence create a popular groundswell of opinion to influence their voting) before they actually vote? Besides, they've already received the "groundswell of opinion": the popular vote!

I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I just don't recall any discussion after previous presidential elections about the impending EC vote. People assume that the EC vote will correlate to the popular one, which is a generally safe assumption but ultimately false. Any outcry (or outrage) would likely follow an EC vote, not precede one. Right? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 12:44 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #14 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Isn't there a slight temporal discontinuity in your question? How can we know how the College will vote...

Yes, there have been a few scattered renegades. Lloyd Bentsen's 1988 presidential electoral vote, for example, was nevertheless cast by a Democratic elector who simply flip-flopped his presidential and vice-presidential choices.

And a simple Democratic majority in the House of Representatives doesn't necessarily get you a Democratic president, if the vote ends up there. The House votes by state caucus, with each state having one vote. Whichever party controls the most state delegations would pick the winner. This would probably, but not necessarily, be the party that controls the House at large. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy - 12:45 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #15 of 773
Tim Russert has a fancy shirt wirt wirt, and we all know he's a little squirt wirt wirt

I think that's because this election looks like it may well be split, Gore with the popular and Bush with the state's electoral. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:46 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #16 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

David, in the last 27 presidential elections there's been no reason to pay much attention to the E.C. because if every elector voted for the candidate who won his/her state, the final tally would mimic the popular vote -- and this is precisely what happened (a handful of protest votes by electors notwithstanding). I'm talking about a scenario in which this would not happen.

Think about it. By 11:00 Eastern time on election night, we would know that one candidate was winning the popular vote but another candidate was winning the E.C. Remember that most Americans don't think about the E.C. -- they think they elect the president. Will they -- we -- be outraged if we find out our majority (or plurality) choice wo't be respected? I think the answer is yes -- I just don't know how deep the outrage will go and how effective it will be. But it will start literally hours after the polls close, when it will be clear who's won the popular vote (candidate A) and who's slated to win the E.C. (candidate B).

And then the press will give us a civics lesson, explaining the E.C. to those who don't understand it. And the party whose candidate is slated to lose the E.C. will stir up outrage -- justifiably, because that candidate won the popular vote. That's how I see it, at least. 
(BOOKMARK)

Don S. - 12:46 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #17 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Actually, the most recent Electoral maps are starting to favor Gore heavily, with even states like Jeb's own Florida in play. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 12:50 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #18 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Steve M. [on edit] Your statement in post #7 is not quite correct. In 1992 and in 1996 no one candidate got a majority of the popular vote. The plurality winner (meaning the candidate with the largest vote count but not a simple majority (50+%)) garnered the electors in each state where no clear majority was obtained, with the exceptions of Nebraska and Maine if I recall which allow for proportional representation in their state's electors. Thus the needed 271 votes in the EC to elect but not a corresponding popular majority. IIRC the total national percentages ran something like 42 and 48 percent for WJC respectively. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:52 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #19 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

We accept a presidential candidate as a winner who wins a plurality but not a majority. But would we accept a candidate as a winner who came in second in the popular vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Gentry - 12:52 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #20 of 773
Doctor, I want Prilosec, it's the purple pill! ... What does it do again?

But, in 1992 and 1996, Clinton won the most votes of the three people running (popular votes). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 01:12 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #21 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

Okay, Steve, I think I see what you're getting at. I think you're asking "Would the American electorate, being woefully ignorant about how their own system works, accept an Electoral College vote that is inconsistent with the popular one?"

Given the abysmal understanding we possess in general about our own political system, my answer is "Probably not." And so I see three possible responses by the aggrieved parties in this context: acceptance (followed by slander and obstruction of the winner--cf. Richard Mellon Scaife); attempted abolishment of the EC (it's been tried before); revolution.

A thoughtful and educated American might be more sanguine about such a scenario, but there don't seem to be too many of us these days. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 02:46 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #22 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a rejection of the electoral college. I think an awful lot of folks who know what it is, possibly a majority, think it's long outlived its usefulness and should go the way of indirect election of senators (which is also in the original Constitution). I certainly think it should go. Do you think we need the check on democracy that the E.C. represents? I don't -- I think the people can be trusted to choose the president. I think direct election is consistent with our values, and that abolishing the E.C. -- which I'm sure will eventually happen -- is consistent with our notion of the Constitution as a living document that can be changed, though not casually.

I think Americans see themselves as the people who should elect the president. I think the rejection of the popular will would set off an uproar. And why not? Public outrage that influences our representatives is part of the American way. If popular rejection of the idea of removing Bill Clinton from office stayed the Senate's hand, that was the system working, not failing to work. Similarly, if popular outrage persuades some electors to switch votes, that would also be the system working. And since the Constitution doesn't require electors to vote any particular way, an election influenced this way would be legal and constitutional.

Of course, it would've been better to abolish the E.C. a long time ago, but it's human nature not to take steps to prevent a disaster that consistently manages to prevent itself.

Frankly, I don't want a president who lost the popular vote -- whether I voted for this person or not. I like the idea of democracy and I don't like the idea of a president whose ascendancy seems illegitimate. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 02:56 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #23 of 773
Class Maledictorian

And since the Constitution doesn't require electors to vote any particular way, an election influenced this way would be legal and constitutional.

While I agree that a 1888-type scenario would cause an outcry and would most likely result in the abolition of the Electoral College, I'm sure the popular-minority candidate would be seated after winning the Electoral Vote, and that the public would just have to get over its qualms. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 03:39 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #24 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Steve M. 9/15/00 2:46pm

Read the article whose link I posted a few posts upthread. The EC isn't necessarily the dinosaur you think. 
(BOOKMARK)

Mike McG - 08:41 pm PST - Sep 16, 2000  - #25 of 773
Shuck Frub

There are some who argue that the Electoral College system ensures a more broad-based coalition for the winning Presidential candidate because it forces candidates to put together appeals to different regional interests, instead of collecting the votes of those with a single narrow interest, which would exacerbate class conflict, etc. I'm not fully conversant with these arguments (not being a political scientist), but they seem to have merit for me -- I'm not convinced that a society as sprawling as ours -- not only geographically, but culturally and in class terms as well -- would benefit from removing a buffer between us and direct democracy.

Still, I am disturbed by the "winner-take-all" nature of the EC. Off the top of my head, it seems that it would be better to tie the EC vote to the Congressional District vote -- i.e., when you vote for Joe Blfptzkst for Congress from your district, you're also voting for him as one of your state's electors. Then you vote for the other two electors from your state on an at-large basis. It seems to me that this would bring the Electoral College closer in alignment with the general political wishes of the whole population. Or am I unnecessarily complicating the process?

I dunno, this is just an improvisational riff, not fully thought out at all. Discuss amongst yourselves.

<on edit> I guess my point is that doing it this way would end the "winner-take-all" system in the big states -- make it possible for the candidates to split, say, California, 32-20, instead of one candidate getting all 52 (or whatever) electoral votes simply by winning the popular vote 51-49. The real problem is the way the present system places a premium on eking out a narrow victory in large states like CA, TX, NY, IL, MI, FL, etc., and getting a huge number of EVs that don't reflect the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 06:52 am PST - Sep 17, 2000  - #26 of 773

The 'winner-take-all' nature of the EC accomplishes several things. First, the winner-take-all model contributes to the buffer effect. It forces a candidate to have broad appeal, similar to a senator representing a state while a member of the house represents a district. Second, it prevents the EC vote from simply mirroring the congressional vote (which would probably result in a single 'majority party' system most of the time, for long periods of time).

 on edit:

(MM): The real problem is the way the present system places a premium on eking out a narrow victory in large states like CA, TX, NY, IL, MI, FL, etc., and getting a huge number of EVs that don't reflect the popular vote.

I forgot to address this. The winner-take-all model forces candidates to compete for that narrow victory, statewide. IOW, you really have to compete almost everywhere in battleground states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike McG - 01:44 pm PST - Sep 17, 2000  - #27 of 773
Shuck Frub

coffee:

Points well taken. As I said, I was just riffing of the top of my head. But I still think the elctoral college system, despite the upside aspects of the "buffer effect," also has some downside, too. I'm just not sure what to do about it. I guess that's what a forum like this is for. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 08:16 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #28 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I can now see one thing that would happen if my scenario came true: a lot of people would offer the (admittedly thoughtful) pro-E.C. arguments that have been posted here in newspapers and on TV and radio. Some of these people would be historians; others would be flacks for the candidate who won the E.C. And I think the Beltway media elites, who have become more and more wary of the people, would tend to treat these pro-E.C. arguments very respectfully and would attempt to marginalize anyone who said the E.C. was undemocratic. But I think that would only anger the public even more -- justifiably.

Whatever you think of the E.C., do you agree with me that a president who won the E.C. but not the popular vote would have to overcome the perception of illegitimacy? I think either winner in this scenario would have a problem, but I think a popular-vote-only winner would seem far more legitimate to the public than an E.C.-only winner. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 08:20 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #29 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I think a popular-vote-only winner would seem far more legitimate to the public than an E.C.-only winner.

Of course, because he would be more legitimate. After all, it is supposed to be a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people." And I don't think "people" in that phrase refers to "corporate overlords". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lazlo - 08:23 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #30 of 773
Four reasons (in no particular order) to wish that the Republic of Texass would just go away and leave the rest of the Union alone: George W. Bush, Richard Armey, Tom DeLay, and Phil Gramm.

Should this scenario occur and the electors give us a Prez that the people did not elect, then there will, at the least, be a groundswell of support for getting rid of this offensive and elitist Constitutional provision. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 08:41 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #31 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I'd love to see it happen. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 09:03 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #32 of 773

Whatever you think of the E.C., do you agree with me that a president who won the E.C. but not the popular vote would have to overcome the perception of illegitimacy?

 Probably. A very short-term problem though, in the larger scheme of things.

Recycla: "corporate overlords" have nothing to do with the EC system.

Lazlo: look at the math behind the system first, and consider what role the EC actually plays in our current system before condemning it as "offensive and elitist". Although the original intent and purpose of the EC were quite different, the result is what matters. The framers appear to have inadvertently created an additional safeguard against the tyranny of the majority (although not in a way they could have foreseen at the time). 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 11:24 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #33 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

The framers appear to have inadvertently created an additional safeguard against the tyranny of the majority (although not in a way they could have foreseen at the time).

 How, by allowing for the possibility of a tyranny of the minority? Without proportional representation there will (in essence) always be a tyranny of the majority (with the constitution the only protector of the minority voices). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finny - 11:34 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #34 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

This is really none of my business since I'm not an American, but I'd strongly advise you to think carefully before scrapping the EC. Such institutions prevent one part of the country taking control of the whole thing. We know about that in Canada, about a quarter of our population lives in Toronto. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 11:50 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #35 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Finny, what are your thoughts on the health care system up there? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 11:53 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #36 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Recycla 9/18/00 11:50am

Let's stick to the EC discussion, shall we? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 11:54 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #37 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I know it's off topic, but I'm trying to do a survey. I promise, I just want to hear Finny's answer and then back to the EC discussion. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:04 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #38 of 773

How, by allowing for the possibility of a tyranny of the minority?

As to 'how', it requires a candidate to have (somewhat) broad appeal. The second part of your question, "a tyranny of the minority" is hardly a danger. Most states bind their electors (by law or in the state constitution) to vote the will of the electorate as expressed in the popular vote. It is hard to imagine a realistic scenario where the electoral college radically diverges from the popular vote. While it is possible for the EC outcome to (slightly) differ from the popular vote in an extremely close race, a difference of perhaps 1% would not bring about tyranny. We'd probably just elect the loser of the election four years later, as we have done in the past.

Without proportional representation there will (in essence) always be a tyranny of the majority (with the constitution the only protector of the minority voices).

Ummm...if you read that sentence closely it could be interpreted as an argument in favor of the electoral college. 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 12:10 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #39 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

The electoral college is proportionally representative? When, states are won "all-or-nothing", it doesn't seem like it to me. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finny - 12:13 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #40 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

Okay, briefly then:

1. It's wonderful. Anyone who believes the right-wing propaganda that it's bad should come up here and run for office opposing it. You'd get about five votes.

2. It has had some problems because it was starved for cash while the Liberals dug the country out of the deficit that the Conservatives created. (parallel situation to Reagan/Clinton in US). Now that there are budget surpluses again the pressure on the system is lessening.

3. I doubt it would work in the US. The interests opposing universal health care are just too powerful.

Back to the EC, it would be a very entertaining scenario if GW won the EC but lost the popular vote and the Congress. Can you say, "In over his head"? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:23 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #41 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Finny, thanks much. That's what I had thought. You all are very lucky to have that system. Many are dedicated to having a similar system here as well. It is an uphill battle against the corporate interests though. As for the EC, why is it "winner take all"? Does anyone know? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finny - 12:23 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #42 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

Okay, briefly then:

1. It's wonderful. Anyone who believes the right-wing propaganda that it's bad should come up here and run for office opposing it. You'd get about five votes.

2. It has had some problems because it was starved for cash while the Liberals dug the country out of the deficit that the Conservatives created. (parallel situation to Reagan/Clinton in US). Now that there are budget surpluses again the pressure on the system is lessening.

3. I doubt it would work in the US. The interests opposing universal health care are just too powerful.

Back to the EC, it would be a very entertaining scenario if GW won the EC but lost the popular vote and the Congress. Can you say, "In over his head"? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lazlo - 12:23 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #43 of 773
Four reasons (in no particular order) to wish that the Republic of Texass would just go away and leave the rest of the Union alone: George W. Bush, Richard Armey, Tom DeLay, and Phil Gramm.

The "Founding Fathers," esp. Hamilton, were very distrustful of the wisdom of the people, hence its restrictions on the franchise as well as the fact that they chose not to allow the people to directly elect Senators (they were elected by state legislatures). The EC was a part of this elitism. The principle of it is offensive to my admittedly modern sensibilities. Then again, these were the same people who owned slaves and did nothing to try and end this abhorrent practice. Quite the contrary. 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 12:24 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #44 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

On what grounds should the EC be defended? Is in an anachronism? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:38 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #45 of 773

The electoral college is proportionally representative? When, states are won "all-or-nothing", it doesn't seem like it to me.

Is the senate proportionately representative? The nature of a senatorial election has a lot in common with the EC process.

The "all-or-nothing" nature has been discussed before, what'd you think about the points raised/discussed before? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:41 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #46 of 773

Lazlo: as pointed out previously, there is an enormous difference between the original intent and the end result. It turns out that instituting the EC system was somewhat serendipitous on the part of the framers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:42 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #47 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

No, the Senate is not proportionally representative, and I think a case can be made that it gives more powers to states than to individuals.

 I have to admit to not having seen the all-or-nothing discussion earlier. I'll check it out. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:49 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #48 of 773

Here you go: Post #26

Oops, actually you might want to read a few posts before & after for context, too. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:53 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #49 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

coffee

 The winner-take-all model forces candidates to compete for that narrow victory, statewide. IOW, you really have to compete almost everywhere in battleground states.

Yes, but it allows candidates to completely neglect those states where they are obviously bound to win or lose. I think I'd rather have candidates going to all of the states than just a few "battleground" states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:56 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #50 of 773

As for 'proportionate representation', it depends on how one defines the term. For example, we have a bicameral legislature with "proportionate representation" in both houses. 
(BOOKMARK)

Finny - 12:58 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #51 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

I think I'd rather have candidates going to all of the states than just a few "battleground" states.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:00 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #52 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I suppose I would define "proportional representation" as representing the populace in the proportion to which they occur in the country. Like the House of Representatives. But what about the winner-take-all? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:02 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #53 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Yes Finny, but it wouldn't be so blatant and individuals would still have to visit states, like california, where even 30% is a significant amount of votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 01:03 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #54 of 773

Yes, but it allows candidates to completely neglect those states where they are obviously bound to win or lose.

Unfortunately true. This is not necessarily a reflection on the EC though, as it is in large part due to the constituency of those states.

I think I'd rather have candidates going to all of the states than just a few "battleground" states.

I'd rather have fewer "true believer" states (with more battleground states as a result). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:04 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #55 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I'd rather have fewer "true believer" states (with more battleground states as a result).

Well, yes, I think we all would. I may be wrong, but I think Nader is the only candidate who's visited all 50 states this year. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 01:14 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #56 of 773

No, the Senate is not proportionally representative, and I think a case can be made that it gives more powers to states than to individuals.

No, it doesn't. What it actually does is put the citizens of smaller, less populous states on equal footing with those in more populous states. For example, should South Dakota be powerless because several congressional districts have more people? Do you believe that GP 'abolish the senate' stuff is a good idea? 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 01:18 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #57 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Do you believe that GP 'abolish the senate' stuff is a good idea?

No, not necessarily, though I'd like to discuss it.

For example, should South Dakota be powerless because several congressional districts have more people?

Ummmm.....I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of privileging the rights of individuals over the rights of "states". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 01:20 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #58 of 773

By South Dakota, I mean the people of South Dakota.

on edit: not just SD, BTW (insert your favorite state here)
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:29 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #59 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

How are those people "powerless". They have a representative or two don't they? 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 01:38 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #60 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

The guy who's sworn in next January 20 will be the guy who gets 271 or more electoral votes. No other factor enters into it.

Some states have laws committing electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, but if an elector ignores this pledge and votes otherwise his vote will count and he will then face charges in his state that he violated the law. His vote is his vote however he casts it.

There is no way that this election will emulate the 1888 election; Gore will get a far higher percentage of the electoral votes than he will get of the popular votes, and this is the usual outcome. I believe he will get around 420 of the 535.

But I do believe that if the electoral vote contradicted the popular vote today there would be such a firestorm of public support for a constitutional amendment to scrap this odd anachronism in favor of a system that elects the guy with the most votes that it will be the last time the Electoral College convenes.

The Electoral College was set up because our Founders feared the rabble. This was (and remains) a legitimate fear; democracy was new then and they didn't know what to expect. The Electoral College, however, has proven totally useless; the only safeguard needed against the rabble was a representative bicameral legislature for our lawmaking, not a restraint on the right of the public to elect our Chief Executive.

(Nowhere is this need for a representative legislature made clearer than in California, where its I&R system causes many strange and unjust aberrations.)

I reject the argument that the Electoral College system requires a candidate to broaden his appeal. Indeed, unless we disintegrate into a multi-party system (heaven forbid!) it can be at least as persuasively argued that it allows a candidate to pander to the interests of only those who dwell in the most densely populated areas of a limited number of states. We no longer have states that are wildly different culturally from other states as we did in the past, but we do have people whose individual needs vary widely.

If we abolished the Electoral College everyone's vote would count the same regardless of where they lived; a candidate could no longer focus on "battleground states" because every vote would be worth fighting for; indeed, it would most benefit the candidates to campaign the most heavily where their support was least, because it would be a more fertile area in which to gain support -- there would be a higher percentage of minds he could theoretically change in his favor.

The times when the Electoral College results differed from the popular vote results are a mixed bag. In no case, 1824 where John Quincy Adams was elected over Andrew Jackson, in 1876 where, in our weirdest election, Rutherford B. Hayes was chosen over Samuel Tilden entirely extraconstitutionally by a judicial commission on a straight party line 8-7 vote, and in 1888 where the spectacularly undistinguished Benjamin Harrison won an electoral vote majority over Grover Cleveland, can it be persuasively argued that the Electoral College's choice was superior to that of the people.

Please note that we can't blame 1872 on the Electoral College; their selection was so bollixed up by the Reconstruction carpetbaggers and scalawags that they had nothing to do with it.

I believe you'll find, Recycla, that everybody who lives under socialized medicine would NEVER go back to the way we do it here. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:40 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #61 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I believe you'll find, Recycla, that everybody who lives under socialized medicine would NEVER go back to the way we do it here.

Fergie, that's why I support Ralph Nader, the only candidate for a single-payer universal healthcare system. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 01:43 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #62 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

But Recycla, it WILL NOT HAPPEN unless there are SIGNIFCANT Democratic majorities in the House and Senate along with a DEMOCRATIC president. This is what you seem so unable to understand. 
(BOOKMARK)

coffee - 01:48 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #63 of 773

The rules of the House & Senate are very different, Recycla. In the House, a minority party is essentially powerless against a unified majority. For the most part, individual house members have no real power (outside of committee or leadership positions). Compromise is never required in the House.

 The Senate has very different rules. Any Senator can prevent something from getting done if they are determined enough to prevent it, and power is measured very differently in the Senate (it has nothing to do with chairing a particular committee, for example). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 04:09 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #64 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

coffee, could you please elaborate more. I appreciate the information you've laid out here.

Fergie, I'm going to vote for my Democratic Senator this year, and the Democratic congressman in my district is worse than the Republican. Gephardt is happy Nader's running. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 04:54 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #65 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

Unless a party that is trying to pass legislation has 60 votes in the Senate in favor of the legislation, a single Senator can block consideration of that legislation by conducting a filibuster. This in fact is the mechanism that has prevented the passage of much social legislation through the years, including campaign finance reform. It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and shut down a filibuster; this was reduced from 67 by a rules change implemented in 1975. Unfortunately, when that rule was changed the rule also was changed requiring the individual Senator conducting the filibuster to hold the floor continuously, so now it requires cloture just to terminate debate at all.

In the House, if it is unified the majority party can act in a manner basically unfettered by any objections of the minority however strenuous those objections may be. The House works by strict majority rule on all points except veto override or expulsion of a member. Debate is limited under House rules; each member has only a maximum amount of time and the total time permitted for debate can be limited even further by the majority leadership.

Legislation is frequently steamrollered through the House only to be stopped in the Senate. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 06:22 am PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #66 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Thanks for the clarification Fergie. Oh, I took the Insight for a spin this weekend, nice ride. How many MPG are you getting? 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 10:08 am PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #67 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

If you think the Electoral College makes elections more democratic, read this:

TV Spots Are Concentrated in Bush-Gore Battlegrounds

What makes the battle of the airwaves here [in Michigan] all the more unusual is that while Detroiters and their counterparts in other heavily targeted markets like Philadelphia, St. Louis and Milwaukee are being subjected to large daily doses of Gore and Bush advertisements, voters in other cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Houston, see virtually none. That is because in June, when the general- election advertising got seriously under way, the political parties picked 15 to 17 states — including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Wisconsin — in which they believed the election would be decided....

It is as if the 2000 presidential campaign were being offered on two television channels: one for those 17 states and a few overlapping markets in others, in which the electronic campaign is omnipresent; another for the 33 states where advertising is an afterthought.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 11:46 am PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #68 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

In re the EC and "vote cancellation":

I've been trying to see if there are any decent examples that illustrate either side of that argument or both sides. I'll use 3 examples of state pairing and use the participation estimates for the 1996 election from the Civic Values website and the EC website for votes available in the EC.

Pairings: CO & CT (8 votes each); FL & TX (25 to 32 votes) and the NY & MI paring noted above (33 and 18 respectively).

Numbers of votes cast (in millions)/participation percentage:

CO: 1.510/53%

CT: 1.392/56%

FL: 5.3/48%

TX: 5.6/41%

NY: 6.439/47%

MI: 3.848/54%

NOTE: All of these states are winner takes all, i.e, the candidate with the most votes (not necessarily a majority of the votes cast) gets all the electors.

If CO went Republican and CT Democrat then in the EC and, in rough terms in popular vote, the cancellation argument holds.

However looking at the above numbers for the FL-TX pairing, roughly the same number of popular votes cast in each state but the end result would be a 7 EC vote difference for one or the other party's candidate if they went different ways. No cancellation there.

Lastly the NY-MI pairing, same kind of story except that even if MI were to have a participation level that in terms of total votes cast brought it into line with those cast by NY voters, and the the states went differnet directions, the end result in the EC is that the 6.4 million NY votes had more "power" by almost double in the EC than did the putative 6.4 million MI votes because the max they could bring to the table was 18 vs NY's 33.

From this I would say that the EC is not acting in furtherance of a "democratic (the concept not the party)" election. As always YMMV. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 12:32 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #69 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

Recycla, my mileage varies wildly by how I drive and what the conditions are like outside.

My best run was on a hot sunny day where I deliberately drove with a light foot to maximize mileage and didn't use any A/C. Everything around here (central Florida) is flat as a pancake.

This ride went through Cocoa Beach, Merritt Island and Cocoa, basically light urban with many traffic lights, then about twelve miles on a residential street (Indian River Drive) to Rt. 1, about five miles on Rt. 1 (similar to an interstate at this point) to a country road, on which I drove about 50 miles to Sanford. I then drove down to and through Orlando (mostly SR 50, Colonial Blvd.) in rush hour traffic jam conditions, and back along a couple of 55 mph country roads (SR 520 to SR 524 to SR 528) and back to Cape Canaveral.

Over the 144 miles of this run, which included an hour of stop-and-go driving in a traffic jam in Orlando, I AVERAGED 94.6 mpg.

If I drive with a lead foot with the A/C blasting I can sometimes get it as low, briefly, as about 47 mpg. My overall average for the car's first 10,100 miles is 62.1 mpg and, this being Florida, I use the A/C a lot. If I hadn't driven with such a lead foot for the first 2,000 miles or so it would probably be almost 70. Almost all of my rides regardless of conditions finish somewhere between 70 and 85 mpg, and the accuracy of its "FCD" ("Fuel Consumption Display") computer is consistently confirmed at the gas pump -- it is SPOT on.

The A/C cuts mileage by almost 20 mpg. If they redesigned the compressor to run with an assist from excess electricity instead of a fan belt they would probably improve this quite a bit. When the A/C is on the auto-start feature, which cuts off the gas engine whenever you stop the car at a stoplight (or for any other reason), is disabled.

When it rains you HAVE to use the A/C and rolling resistance (which in this car is about the same as a skateboard's) is impaired, so mileage suffers dramatically, but still you ALWAYS get at least 55 or so unless you drive like a testosterone-addled teenager.

For my money the Electoral College should be abolished, but it has never done any really great mischief so I'm not all het up about it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:41 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #70 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Yes, the guy at the Honda dealer said he had heard instances of it getting up to 107 MPG. I'm thinking about taking the Prius for a spin this weekend. As a side note, apparently they're going to move the hybrid tech. into the Civic. I think this will be much more successful. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 01:20 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #71 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

I have never been able to average over 100 mpg for a whole ride start-to-finish, but I have gone five mile rolling start, constant speed in the 50s, tail-wind assisted stretches at the computer's upper limit, 150 mpg, on several occasions.

It gets to be a game. The car actually does best on residential through streets; it's mileage at a steady 25 or so is in the 120-130 range normally.

It also does comparatively better in city traffic, because that's when the percentage of electric motor assist is greatest and the auto-stop feature engages when you coast at any speed below 20 mph and when you stop.

The Prius is SO SLOW and clunky compared to the Insight. In the Prius you are always consciously aware that you are driving in a very strange vehicle; the transition between electric and gasoline propulsion requires adjustment of the foot on the accelerator, and braking is VERY uneven, the transition between charge-mode and simple braking is so abrupt and severe that in my opinion it's actually dangerous. I often wonder, also, how reliable its Rube Goldberg twin-drivetrain will be.

It may be the Prius's lack of performance that hinders sales, though. I mean, this is a really SLOW car; you have to go to something like a diesel Peugeot or a diesel Chevette before you see performance like the Prius's -- 0-60 in over 14 seconds, and that's with the battery fully charged -- it's over 20 seconds with the batteries discharged! The Insight, though, is quicker than most econocars, even with the battery depleted, and I've had mine up to 115 mph (although I top out at 99 when the battery's depleted).

When you're driving the Insight, on the other hand, you'd never be aware that it wasn't a normal car unless somebody told you, or you turned on the Fuel Consumption Display or noticed the little Charge/Assist meter, or you drove it far enough to wonder why the gasoline gauge hasn't moved yet.

The Prius, however, seats five and the Insight is a STRICT two-seater, so that's a clear advantage to the Prius.

Also, the Prius in U.S. trim is EPA rated at 52 city and 45 highway mpg, more nearly comparable to a Suzuki Sprint than to my Insight's EPA ratings of 61 city, 70 highway.

Another advantage to the Prius, though, is that in American trim it is CARB SULEV certified (in Japanese trim it does not even meet LEV specs). The Insight is only CARB ULEV certified, probably because it accelerates from a standstill using torque primarily supplied by the gasoline engine while the Prius is all-electric until it's going about 15 mph or so. We are not talking about much difference in total pollutants here, though, even through the total emissions throughout the entire lifetime of the entire production run of these vehicles. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:23 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #72 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I really like the bigger size of the Prius, the Insight is prohibitively small unfortunately, though I must admit I thought it drove nicely. Like I said, I'll take the Prius for a spin and get back to you. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 02:38 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #73 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Ferguson Foont 9/19/00 1:20pm

Given that, with my father being a trucker for nearly 50 years, I've grown up around diesel powered vehicles, I'm used to acceleration curves like that. It's all in what you get used to. For something that's just supposed to be efficient, cheap, basic transportation, I could get very used to it.

I had an '87 diesel Golf that I miss tremendously (a moronic drunk driver deprived me of that car). I consistently got 40+ MPH running around town and right around 60 on the highway. I drove quite a distance for work then, and I would put $5 of diesel fuel in it on Sunday, go back and forth to work all week, run around on weekends, and put $5 back in it on Sunday.

Yeah, you gotta live with 0 to 60 at 12-14 secs. Once you get into 5th gear, however, you can keep with anything moving a reasonable rate of speed, and can get little bursts here and there as needed. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 02:39 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #74 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

The Insight, you know, fully meets all 2003 impact standards. This includes the new oblique and side impact requirements. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 02:40 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #75 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

DH100, you do not have to live with meager performance in the Insight, not at all. That's a zippy little car! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 02:41 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #76 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Ferguson Foont 9/19/00 2:40pm

Hmmm... will have to check that out. Would LOVE 70-100 MPG for my commute. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 05:00 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #77 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Price is an issue too. I think the Prius can probably be had for around $18k, whereas the Insight is more likely, at least $20k. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 06:09 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #78 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

The Prius lists for $2K more than the list price of the Insight, Recycla. The base Insight is $18K; the base Prius is almost $20K. The price I quoted, $23K, that I paid for mine includes destination, taxes, tags, and title -- it's what I actually paid after all the add-ons.

Only two dealer-installed options are available on the Insight, an upgraded stereo with four speakers and CD changer for $700, and a really nifty full-blown automatic climate control for $2,000. I got the climate control but when I upgrade the stereo I'll get much better gear at a much better price at Circuit City or Best Buy.

Unfortunately (and this is the only thing about the car I hate), cruise control is not available even as an option.

It is now only offered with a five-speed. I understand that the 2001 model will offer an optional CVT, which should improve performance and economy even more (if it's anything like the CVT on the old Subaru Justy). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 06:35 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #79 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Bill Clinton won around 400 electoral votes despite his Prius. 
(BOOKMARK)

Mike McG - 07:16 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #80 of 773
Shuck Frub

Don S.--

Do you mean "Priapus"? There's a car brand name to conjure with! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 10:42 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #81 of 773
Class Maledictorian

(I was trying to bring us back on topic. Clumsily.)

Don't they already have a car with that name? By Ford?

Oh wait. I'm thinking "Probe." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 09:53 am PST - Sep 20, 2000  - #82 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Alright, back on topic. Sorry for the diversion. Thanks Fergie. Anyone know the electoral count when Lincoln won? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 10:47 am PST - Sep 20, 2000  - #83 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Recycla

Try here. Note that Lincoln won with only 39.8% of the popular vote in his first election but garnered 180 EC votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:37 pm PST - Sep 20, 2000  - #84 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Thanks. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Busch - 12:35 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #85 of 773
Leela, Tobin, Emony, Audrid, Torias, Joran, Curzon, Jadzia, Ezri

In weak defense of the Electoral Collage (and avoiding the temptation to digress to a discussion about my new Subaru), the EC makes it harder for one party to steal a presidential election with ballot stuffing. The 1960 Presidential election's Illinois electoral votes have been disputed on grounds that the Daley machine got a bunch of dead people to vote. Be that as it may, any damage was confined to one state's electoral votes; Daley could have found ten million dead Illinois voters and it would have had no additional impact on the election's outcome, while the impact on the election would have been very different in a popular vote based election system. If the election were decided by a popular vote, having a large illegitimate popular vote in one state counted could more easily change the outcome of a Presidential election than with the EC system. 
(BOOKMARK)

Jim Sagle - 09:55 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #86 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

The EC is good because it prevents Southern regional domination. Dubya could well win the popular vote by racking up a huge Hee Haw total while losing the EC by a wide margin.

Thus the strictly theoretical arguments against it are trumped by the fact that Dubya sucks. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 10:18 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #87 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

The EC is also good in that it prevents huge and predominantly Republican nationwide ad campaigns and a Republican-controlled national media from swamping grass roots voting efforts.

Thus the strictly theoretical arguments against it are trumped by the fact that the Republicans suck. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 10:20 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #88 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

I'm NOT being facetious here - this is NO time to be getting theoretical! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lee Green - 08:55 pm PST - Oct 1, 2000  - #89 of 773
If he's taking away the Grannies' right to vote now, what's he going to do to their social secuity?

to answer the question, the electoral college vote wins, but if the electoral college came in with a tie, the Congress, or it may be the House of REpresentatives gets to vote and break the tie...which you know is bad news for any democrat, currently.

In the election between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, there was a tie and the House (I think it was) voted for Jefferson. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 11:26 pm PST - Oct 3, 2000  - #90 of 773
Class Maledictorian

if the electoral college came in with a tie, the Congress, or it may be the House of REpresentatives gets to vote and break the tie...which you know is bad news for any democrat, currently.

Furthermore, I believe it would be the INCOMING Congress which votes.... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 05:10 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #91 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Furthermore, I believe it would be the INCOMING Congress which votes....

I'm almost certain this is NOT the case. 
(BOOKMARK)

Russ Logan - 09:29 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #92 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Recycla

According to the 12th Amendment the EC meets on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes. The 20th Amendment ends the the terms of Reps and Sens at Noon 3 January. Under US Code Title 3 Chapter 1 Section 15 Congress shall be in session on the 6th of January to officially count the votes of the EC and certify the results. The provision of election in the House would then be invoked if needed under the 12th Amendment. Thus by this reading it would be the newly seated Congress that does this voting. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 10:34 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #93 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps it's the case. I had heard otherwise elsewhere. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 11:18 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #94 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

And you take what you heard "elsewhere" as a better source than the Constitution, eh?

Didn't think we'd hear a real "Sorry, I was wrong" from you.

Don and Russ are correct. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 11:36 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #95 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

If they're correct, I'M SORRY. Geez. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jamie Van Allen - 01:22 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #96 of 773
Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage. - Shakespeare (Twelfth Night)

And how, do you suppose, would the American public react if this election is decided in the House?

BTW - I think the election will be decided in the House. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:27 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #97 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Absolute chaos. The EC would definitely topple, it would be great. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 01:29 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #98 of 773
Class Maledictorian

BTW - I think the election will be decided in the House.

RjHeaney - 01:52 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #99 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Jamie Van Allen 10/4/00 1:22pm

BTW - I think the election will be decided in the House.

Recycla 10/4/00 1:27pm

Absolute chaos. The EC would definitely topple, it would be great.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 02:50 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #100 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

The election would only be decided in the House if no candidate got a majority of electoral votes. This would happen only if more than two candidates carried some number of states. It didn't happen even in 1992, when Perot got 19% of the popular vote, so it sure as hell isn't going to happen this year!

I believe 1948 and 1968 are the last two elections where more than two candidates carried at least one state and therefore received electoral votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 03:02 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #101 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 2:50pm

This would happen only if more than two candidates carried some number of states.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:04 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #102 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

True, though an exceedingly unlikely event. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 03:06 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #103 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 2:50pm

I believe 1948 and 1968 are the last two elections where more than two candidates carried at least one state and therefore received electoral votes.

RjHeaney - 03:08 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #104 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:04pm

True, though an exceedingly unlikely event.

The way things worked back then confuses me a bit. It looks like you could have "run" for VP, but wind up winning the Presidency. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:09 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #105 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Re 1976 and 1988: How could candidates who were not on the ballot carry any state? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:10 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #106 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

In 1800, I thought there were several other candidates with electoral votes, so even without the tie, it would have gone into the House due to lack of majority.

Also, 1800 was not the only election decided in the House; you've forgotten about 1824. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 03:50 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #107 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:09pm

Re 1976 and 1988: How could candidates who were not on the ballot carry any state?

Those years were years where an elector didn't "vote" for the person they were chose to elect, and chose someone not even on the ballot.

Hell of a system, eh? 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 04:00 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #108 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:10pm

In 1800, I thought there were several other candidates with electoral votes, so even without the tie, it would have gone into the House due to lack of majority.

It looks like you had a race for Pres with X number of EC votes, and a race for VP with X number of EC votes. When ballots were counted, whoever had the most was Pres, 2nd was VP. They didn't differentiate between the Pres and VP, when looking at EC votes, just line em all up.

To me, it looks like you could have run for VP and wind up winning the Presidency. It sounds strange, but that's what I believe could have happened.

Glad Amendment XII fixed that.

<on edit> Looking up Amendment XII, it was enacted after the election of 1800 but before 1804. Looks like they saw what a mess that election was. It went to 36 ballots before they finally got a President. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 04:08 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #109 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:10pm

Also, 1800 was not the only election decided in the House; you've forgotten about 1824.

Whatta country! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wbrad - 04:37 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #110 of 773
"I think the Weimar Republic collapsed and the Nazis took over in 1933 because there were not enough citizens. ".................Gunter Grass

<http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/arg16.html>

scenario for 1888 happening all over again in the above article

From the story:

"In the 20 states that Harrison won in 1888, Harrison took approximately 51% of the vote to Cleveland's 45% of the vote. The 20 states that Harrison won accounted for approximately 66% of the total vote for president in 1888. In the 18 states that Cleveland won, Cleveland took approximately 56% of the vote to Harrison's 41%. The 18 states that Cleveland won accounted for approximately 34% of the total vote for president that year.

An analysis of the ARG surveys in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that were completed in mid-September shows that Al Gore, much like Harrison, has a smaller lead in the 26 states and the District of Columbia where Gore leads and Bush, much like Cleveland, has a greater lead in the 24 states where Bush leads." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 04:44 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #111 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Sure it's possible, but I would guess highly unlikely. I would say the only way you're gonna see one get the popular and the other get the EC is if the popular is really, really close ... less then 1/2% difference.

I don't think that's gonna happen this year. 
(BOOKMARK)

D H100 - 05:10 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #112 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

A great article explaining why the EC makes sense, from a mathematical standpoint.

Math Against Tyranny
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 05:20 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #113 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Fasinating article ... I've bookmarked that one. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 05:23 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #114 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

I read it in print originally. That article turned me 180 degrees from how I used to feel about the EC. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 05:41 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #115 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

It's a very good article, and a great case for it.

There are 2 good reasons for the EC ...

It keeps us from election a sectional candidate, which this article in a way supports.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:04 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #116 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

But if 51 districts are good, why not go further and have 436 -- one for each Congressional district (and DC)? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 06:24 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #117 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

If you have 436 districts, why not have 90 million??? ... oh yeah, that would be the same as a popular vote then. 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 07:04 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #118 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Hmmmmm....the difference between 51 and 436 is the same as the difference between 436 and 90 million? Apparently to these limp-brained New Democrats. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 11:54 am PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #119 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

For someone a few frech fries short of a happy meal, let me explain it to you slowly.

The more districts you have, the more it becomes like a popular election, and the less your individual vote can make a difference.

Is 436 that number? not really sure, but it sure seems like it to me. That was the meaning the hyperbole of my statement was trying to get across. But apparently you didn't understand that either, like you didn't understand how ties, or non majority EC votes, were broken. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tresy Kilbourne - 12:14 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #120 of 773
Heal this.

The article also suggests why the Naderites' main complaint against two-partyism--the large overlap in the positions of the two parties--it not necessarily a symptom of politcal illness. The EC system intentionally penalizes factionalism, and thereby encourages each party to broaden their appeal beyond their base.

Naderites, who appear to think compromise is the root of all evil, hate that very notion. They want a system that delivers to them the candidate of their dreams, unsullied by the need to even entertain competing interests, even if that candidate is absolute anathema to everyone else. It's Serbian nationalism writ small, as the example in DH100's link suggests. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:18 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #121 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

On the other hand, in a proportional representation system such as Germany's, a party or faction compromises after winning its share of seats in the Parliament. That system seems to work pretty well. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 12:49 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #122 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

And Italy's proportional system has created over 50 different governments in the last 55 years.

Some countries proportion systems are stable, other countries, like Italy, are not.

Italy's government seems to be in a state of almost constant turmoil.

<on edit> Since Italy has changed their system from a totally proportional system, things appear to have gotten more stable. They changed some of it to direct candidate ballot, like we have here. 
(BOOKMARK)

D H100 - 01:00 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #123 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

RjHeaney 10/5/00 12:49pm

Exactly.

Proportional governments have been kicked around for a long time. Something tells me the founding fathers deliberately split the difference between democracy and stability. It's served us well for 200+ years; why anyone would wish to screw with it so 'I can get something NEW' is beyond me. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cohen - 05:53 am PST - Oct 6, 2000  - #124 of 773
No death penalty for the retarded--give Shrub a life sentence instead.

I read the Math Against Tyranny article and I think it's silly. One of the analogies the writer makes is to the World Series, where the winner is not the team that scores the most runs, but rather the team that consistenly edges out the other.

But that's a specious argument: in the World Series, the same two teams are playing each game. In a presidential election, yes, you've got the same two candidates, but DIFFERENT sets of voters in each state. And some sets of voters get privileged over others. As a message from Steve M. indicated earlier, most of the advertising this year is focused on a few battleground states, primarily in the Midwest. How does that help democracy, when the concerns of most of the country are ignored, and the concerns of a select group of swing voters in a particular region get all the attention?

Or moving to another key swing state, Florida, why should our country's Cuba policy be set because a small group of people can swing a key state in the electoral college--even though the strong majority of the people in the country probably have a different view? If not for the electoral college, the economic boycott of Cuba might have ended years ago. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 05:57 am PST - Oct 6, 2000  - #125 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

How does that help democracy, when the concerns of most of the country are ignored, and the concerns of a select group of swing voters in a particular region get all the attention?

It doesn't. It just makes it easier to campaign since you only have to hit a few "battleground" states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 11:15 am PST - Oct 19, 2000  - #126 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

As to a President winning with a minority of the vote doing no great harm -- well in 1998 the Democrats won 51% of the popular vote for Congress, but got 49% of Congressional seats. So if we had had PR in electing Congress, we would have a had Democratic Speaker of the House, Democrats chairing the plum committes. Does anyone think this result was "harmless". 
(BOOKMARK)

joe bacon - 08:52 pm PST - Oct 21, 2000  - #127 of 773

FYI--it also happened in 1824. Andrew Jackson had more popular votes than John Quincy Adams, but Adams cut a deal with Henry Clay to ensure his election in the House of Representatives.

I am hoping that if this happens, we will see a movement to throw out the Electoral College and go to a one-person-one vote system for President. I enjoy living in California where my Presidential vote is 18 times more powerful than if I lived in Delaware.

I wouldn't be surprised if nobody got a majority. Nader may carry several states (Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Alaska), and hold the balance of power between Bore and Gush.

Then it would be interesting to see Ralph do his Monty Hall impersonation playing "Let's Make A Deal"... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 08:56 pm PST - Oct 21, 2000  - #128 of 773

Nader might CARRY several states???? I sincerely doubt it. Big Time. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:43 pm PST - Oct 22, 2000  - #129 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Nader is not going to carry any states. He's not even going to finish second in any state.

Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and still did not carry a single state. I think he finished second in a couple of states (Maine and Utah maybe?) 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 03:16 pm PST - Oct 22, 2000  - #130 of 773

"Naderites, who appear to think compromise is the root of all evil, hate that very notion. They want a system that delivers to them the candidate of their dreams, unsullied by the need to even entertain competing interests."

I suspect that's not a fair representation of what Nader really believes. Third parties have a successful history in the United States of pushing issues onto the national agenda. We haven't seen a great example of this during our lifetime (unless you count Ross Perot, his problem is he didn't stand for much, he offered a protest vote but not much else). But I'll list three parties which made a big difference:

1) The Republican party. How quickly people forget that the one of the major parties today started out as a cranky fringe (hmm, guess some people will say it never changed it just got larger). The Republicans pushed slavery onto the national agenda. It's a complicated history because the issue was there in some form, the Whig party was already near collapse, and the original founders of the party, to some extent, were pushed aside in 1857-60 (after they had run Fremont) as professional politicians took over.

But that's one successful model for a third party. If someone believes that there is a large constituency for a few basic issues (eg. campaign reform, universal health care) and that the Democrats, for whatever reason, won't or can't push these issues, a third party is one way to steal everything left of center (that's the most ambitious strategy).

2) The Bull Moose party (TR in 1912) was formed when when some Republicans bolted their convention and crafted together a progressive agenda. They were fighting for the soul of the Republican party, threw the election to Wilson, and were ready to run again in 1916. Then Wilson did something very clever. He stole the whole progressive platform. If TR had won in 1912 I think it's possible that the Republican party today might have evolved into what the Democratic party is today (our sense of both parties was formed during FDR's presidency, FDR was a protoge of Wilson, Democrats were the reactionaries on race matters, were for states rights, and this only changed between 1912-1945.

But back to third parties. If the goal of the Bull Moose party was to get their issues before the public in hindsight one could argue that it was a great success. They weren't the ones who implemented the reforms but such things as women's suffrage, an end to child labor, the 40 hour work week, basic issues to us but they were very controversial at the time, were enacted. Both parties had to compete for the vote of progressives. That Wilson did so more vigorously is one of the ironies of history.

3) A variation of this strategy is to build a third party to push one issue, I'll cite my favorite, the National Woman's Party. This existed between 1913-1920 and had just one goal, pursue a scorched earth policy against which ever party was in power until women won the right to vote. They did most of their campaigning in the western states where women had gotten the vote through state initiatives.

And while their influence, in terms of number of members, was tiny, they did affect the political process, they scared Democrats (who were in power at the time) into approving bills which had been stalled in committee for decades. It doesn't take much to scare politicians, actually, especially if they face close elections (which is why the Democrats are crapping in their pants right now).

I'm sure Nader knows this history in some detail. The reason he won't quit is he doesn't see himself as simply a spoiler. If he gets 5% of the vote or more Democrats have to deal with him and his issues. I don't think he's pursuing the first strategy, it's more some mix of the second and third.

I have no trouble understanding why the Gore campaign, Democrats in congress, and those who have strong sympathies for the Democratic party, are furious at Nader. I 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:19 pm PST - Oct 22, 2000  - #131 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Ross Perot stood against the budget deficit. I'd say his campaign was very successful, given what happened over the following eight years. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 10:28 am PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #132 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

The right-wing Washington Times spells out its fear that Gore might win the EC while losing the popular vote.

Vice President Al Gore's strategy to go after states rich with electoral votes raises a remote possibility that has not occurred in presidential politics since 1888.

There is a chance he could capture 270 electoral votes and win the presidency even if he loses the popular vote to Texas Gov. George W. Bush....

Mrs. Jeffe, the analyst from California...says a split decision between the popular vote and the electoral vote would make it hard for the next president to lead.

A presidential election "is about credibility — it's about legitimacy," she said. "It's not about words on paper."

And that's the milder of the two messages I expect from the right-wing press.

The hardball version will be an all-out assault on the EC result -- with Fox News and the New York Post and the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard trotting out a carefully selected procession of Constitutional scholars and GOP spinners who say the EC is an antidemocratic remnant.

This could be accompanied by attempts on the part of both the right press and the GOP to target states in which Gore won a plurality but not a majority -- pressure would be applied to electors either to vote for Bush or to abstain so that the House of Representatives could see to it that the "real" winner ultimately won. There could also be attempts to dig up dirt on Gore electors (electors, after all, are generally party hacks utterly unknown to the voters who unwittingly choose them, and some must have skeletons in their closets).

In other words, I think the right may try to steal the election from Gore if he doesn't win the popular vote.

And, of course, they'll have a point -- such a Gore victory would be tainted. I would find it illegitimate.

I'm just throwing out scenarios here with no evidence, admittedly (except the right's track record of always playing hardball). But we'll have a month between the November election and the December EC vote --plenty of time to launch an all-out assault on what I expect will be called "Gore's tainted victory." Do you think the GOP and the VRWC just won't bother? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 12:01 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #133 of 773

Why would a Gore electoral college win be tainted or unconstitutional? After all, if, say, Gore wins with a mere 19 states while Bush gets 31, Gore will be winning with the votes of many states with the largest populations. The vote of an individual in a large state always counts less than the vote of someone in a smaller state because of the nature of the electoral college, which gives extra weight to the votes of smaller states.Because the weight of the votes is already slanted to the smaller states, a Gore victory in the EC would be even more significant.

Also, those are the rules. And it's a little late in the game to start crying about them now! It's not as if we haven't addressed this as a nation before. If Republicans want to abolish the electoral college, it's fine with me. Why should a resident of Alaska or Wyoming have a vote that counts more than someone who lives in the Northeast? I'm sure Democrats would be delighted to do away with the EC--in the future. 
(BOOKMARK)

Russ Logan - 12:43 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #134 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

SheRa

"The vote of an individual in a large state always counts less than the vote of someone in a smaller state because of the nature of the electoral college, which gives extra weight to the votes of smaller states."

How so? In a lightly populated state such as Montana a one vote margin of victory yields an EC tally of say 4 votes and the same margin in California yields 54. Put another way: a thousand vote margin in Montana still only yields 4 votes and the one vote margin in California still yields 54. Where's the extra weight you espouse? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:45 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #135 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I'm talking about a situation in which Gore has fewer votes overall than Bush, but wins the Electoral College because he wins some big states by small (or smallish) margins. It could happen. The number of states is irrelevant.

I think there'd be no questions about the legitimacy of a Gore presidency if Gore won 19 states and Bush won 31 as long as Gore won both the overall popular vote and the Electoral College. It's a discrepancy between overall vote and EC that's problematic. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:45 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #136 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Divide the population of the state by the number of electors, and you'll see that in the smaller states, there are more electors per resident than in the larger states. This is because each state has 2 Senators, regardless of population. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 12:52 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #137 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Ron

However with the exception of Maine and Nebraska the state's electors exist in an all or nothing realm. Thus to get a state's elector vote requires only one criterion: get the most votes by a margin of one vote in that state. Only in the two states mentioned above is there apportionment of the EC tally. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.W. Dimmitt - 01:04 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #138 of 773
Be compassionate, join FUBAR today! (Faith in Unknown, But Awful, Religions)

Why would winning the EC vote, but losing the popular vote be any more of a problem this year than it was in 1824, 1876, and 1888? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 01:10 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #139 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

WW,

1824 was even wilder, Adams lost both the Polular and the EC, but still ending up winning the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

SheRa - 02:35 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #140 of 773

Russ,

As Ron pointed out, it isn't the states that have more power, but the fact that each individual voter's vote has more impact. That's because the electoral college is made up of the number of its representatives plus its two senators. Wyoming has about 500,000 people (not quite) but it has 3 electoral votes. Texas has about 20 million people and 32 electoral votes. In Wyoming, the votes of about 166,666 people make up one electoral vote. In Texas, it's one electoral vote for about 625,000 people. Therefore, a Wyoming vote has about four times the impact of a Texas vote. Is it a fair system? Yes and no. It's fair because it forces the U.S. to remember the importance of the little states. And it's unfair, because people in big states (meaning states with big populations) have less influence proportionally than people in small states.

And it's just clear and simple according to our system: Whoever wins the electoral college vote is the winner, no matter what the popular vote is. It's been our system for several hundred years, so if people want to change it, they can change it for the NEXT election. It's too late to rethink it for this one! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 02:48 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #141 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

SheRa See my answer to Ron. The votes are not apportioned except in two states (Nebraska and Maine). It is a winner take all and it matters not whether the margin of victory is 1 vote or every vote in that state. The end result is the same the winning candidate gets all that state's votes. The "power" calculation you just cited is an interesting mathematical judgement but it has no bearing on the reality of the mechanics involved in determining the EC vote tally in the state (NE and ME excepted). Thus the example I gave earlier of Montana and California both being decided by a single vote gives that 1 vote far more "power" in CA than the 1 vote in MT, and that is the way it would work, 54 to 4. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:43 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #142 of 773

Well, I do see your point, Russ. That is one of the odd things about the electoral college system. In a way, nearly half the votes of the citizens of the U.S. do not count (because they belong to states where the other part holds sway).

But, Steve, of course it would be completely legitimate for Gore to become President if he wins in the electoral college and not win the popular vote. Our system is an electoral college system. If we went by the popular vote we wouldn't NEED the electoral college. We don't take the average of the two kinds of votes, popular and electoral. We don't use the popular to decide who's going to be president. There's one way, and one way only that Presidents of this country are chosen, and that is through the electoral college. 
(BOOKMARK)

Dean Falcione - 08:39 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #143 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

Dimmit said:

Why would winning the EC vote, but losing the popular vote be any more of a problem this year than it was in 1824, 1876, and 1888?

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Fox News
3. Drudge Report
4. VRWC

None of those things existed in 1888. Believe me, the VRWC will be absolutely foaming at the mouth if Gore wins the EC but loses the popular vote. I agree with Steve M.....they will go on a one-month campaign to get EC voters to change their vote when the EC meet on January 3rd. There is no constitutional requirement that an EC elector votes the way his state's results indicated. Look it up. The EC voters are chosen based on the pop vote in their state, but once they get to Washington on January 3rd, there is NO constitutional requirement that they keep their vote that way.

Pressure, the likes of which have never been seen in modern US political history, will be brought to bear on those electors between Nov 8 and Jan 3rd.

Let's hope it is not an issue....but if you think Rush and his minions would let it go, you're very naive, Dimmitt. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 12:38 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #144 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

And if pressure doesn't work, there's always the military coup option. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 04:39 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #145 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Why does Rush Limbaugh matter? He's a washed-up has-been and about as relevant to 2000 as Newt Gingrich. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fred Dawson - 05:28 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #146 of 773
Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

Has this possibility been brought up here? In one or more states, the election is too close to call on the day after. Without these electoral votes neither Gore nor Bush has a majority. The lengthy process of counting absentee ballots and doing recounts sets in. In several places, charges of vote fraud are made.

It's been a popular conspiracy theory that this happened in Illinois in 1960, that Mayor Daley pulled strings to be sure Kennedy was the victor. But in that case Kennedy had a small but clear lead in the popular vote nationwide and the political atmosphere was not so venomous as it is now.

It may not take a divide between the popular and the electoral vote to create a quandry. Just imagine what the militia movement could do if they think the election's been stolen from their guy. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 06:02 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #147 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Dean F., thanks. You're absolutely right.

And Fred D., thank you for mentioning the "vote fraud" canard. If you lurk at Free Republic, as I regularly do, you know that hardcore right-wingers think Democratic vote fraud is an epidemic in this country. The GOP didn't stop Bob Dornan from harassing Loretta Sanchez for months and months with phony charges of vote fraud when she first defeated him. That was just one House seat. This is the damn presidency. They're going to try to win by any means necessary.

I'll upset a few people when I say this, but this is my principal argument for voting Gore rather than Nader. I don't care if you're in a "safe" state like my state, New York. Gore needs every popular vote he can get, not just ever electoral vote.

Oh, and by the way, ABC News now has the race in a dead heat. So every vote counts.
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LanDroid - 09:54 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #148 of 773
http://www.landroid.homestead.com/main.html

This just up on Reuters:

Analysis: Gore Could Lose Popular Vote, Win Election

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chances are growing that Democrat Al Gore could lose the popular vote to Republican George W. Bush and still win the presidency in the Nov. 7 election, according to political scientists. "The chances of a candidate, presumably Gore, losing the popular vote and still winning the election are better than at any time since 1976 when it almost happened," said Catholic University political scientist Mark Rozell.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:52 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #149 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I think the result of this unlikely event would be that Gore really does take office, but then both parties support a constitutional amendment to modify or abolish the Electoral College. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 12:23 pm PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #150 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

I would hope the EC doesn't get abolished. Because then, in a very close race, voter fraud does becomes a real issue. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 01:53 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #151 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

In fact it has been the deciding factor in 2 US elections. 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 02:13 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #152 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

I think it has been 4 elections.

1800 (tie)
1824 (winner lost both Popular and Electoral)
1876 (winner lost Popular, but won Electoral) - highly contested election
1888 (winner lost Popular, but won Electoral) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:16 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #153 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I was refering to vote fraud, 1960 and 1876. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 02:26 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #154 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Vote fraud was not decisive in 1960. The issue was finally dropped when a number of recounts which did take place ended up with Nixon further behind. In short the Republicans committed more fraud than the Democrats in that election. It just was not as widely publicized. I think I saw something about this on Slate recently, but I don't remember and could be wrong.

BTW, fraud is not a new problem in the US. The first time Thomas Jefferson ran, he received only seven votes in his home state of Virginia. "Fraud" he quite understandably cried. "Absolutely", replied his opponents, "and as soon as we find the man who voted seven times he will be prosecuted to full letter of the law". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 11:57 am PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #155 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Bush Set to Fight An Electoral College Loss

They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for it.

Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are preparing for the ultimate "what if" scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses the White House because Al Gore's won the majority of electoral votes?...

"The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."...

In league with the campaign — which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness — a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser....

And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."

Monty G. - 12:15 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #156 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

yeah, I saw that too. did someone dispute it?

I guess losing gracefully just ain't in some folks vocabulary. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:22 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #157 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

A lot of people said upthread that the EC was the last word -- whoever won enough states to win the EC would win the election and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it.

Also, the Nader "safe state" strategy is predicated on the absolute certainty of the EC being the last word. Nader voters have gotten very cranky when I've mentioned my fears about an EC crisis in Nader threads. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 12:26 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #158 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

Also, the Nader "safe state" strategy is predicated on the absolute certainty of the EC being the last word. Nader voters have gotten very cranky when I've mentioned my fears about an EC crisis in Nader threads.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 12:46 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #159 of 773

I think there are two nightmare scenarios which might develop from this election (and I'll keep party out of it because each, at this point, could be on the winning or losing side).

1) A candidate wins by a few electoral votes and a party searches for cranks among the electors of the other party who are willing to switch or vote for some third person (much more likely if the EC goes against the popular vote, there are going to be wackos in any group of 535 people, such a move, moreover, would be constitutional).

2) There are allegations of voter fraud in one or two swing states, I'm sure this does happen, our system doesn't try to prevent it, it's a joke, really (this won't prevent someone from taking office but it will follow him for four years).

The EC should be abolished and some national system of voter registration should be put into place (which requires simple verification of signatures, etc). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:50 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #160 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Nit-pick: there are 538 electors (3 for DC). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 01:32 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #161 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The electoral college has its virtues. For one thing it is a road block against extremism. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 01:35 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #162 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

How so? It did nothing to impede the election of Ronald Reagan. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Boggioni - 01:45 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #163 of 773
Taking political advice from a Nader supporter is kind of like taking swimming lessons from Natalie Wood.

there are going to be wackos in any group of 535 people

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kenneth Heintz - 05:17 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #164 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

I have two words for the notion that, in the event that one candidate wins an electoral majority, but the other has a popular majority, electors ought to take it upon themselves to cast their votes for the one who won the popular vote nationally:

FUCK THAT!

 As for abolishing the EC for subsequent elections, we can talk. I would point out that the barriers for entry, money-wise, are that much higher if all candidates must cover all fifty. I am myself also not entirely hostile to giving small states slightly higher representation, on federalist grounds. Abolishing winner-take-all would correct many of the perceived evils of the EC without totally wiping out the sovereignty of the states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:21 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #165 of 773

Dear Kenneth,

EXACTLY. If my kids are playing Monopoly and one of them loses, the other one doesn't say "I meant to play it by some other rules." It's a completely outrageous suggestion. Besides. WHOSE vote in which state should be overcome to give Bush the election under those circumstances? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 05:42 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #166 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

If Gore wins the electoral vote and loses the popular vote, there will be a nationwide mediadriven cyclone - and maybe a military coup to back it up. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:47 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #167 of 773

If Gore wins the electoral vote on November 7, and then somehow doesn't end up becoming President because some electors were pressured to vote otherwise, that IS a coup. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kenneth Heintz - 05:51 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #168 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

If Bush actually gets > 50%, the fur might indeed fly. I don't really see that happening; Gore plus Nader is absolutely certain to be over half, not even counting Buchanan. If Bush merely has a popular plurality over Gore, Gore's "mandate" would surely be damaged (that's a joke; the GOP wouldn't have acknowledged a mandate if Clinton had won all fifty states in 1992), but no one would take seriously the suggestion that Bush actually deserved to be named(?) president. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 06:33 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #169 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

You HUGELY underestimate the arrogant and self-righteous power lust characteristic of conservatives.

After all, even the THOUGHT that a President should be removed from office for private consensual sex would have seemed laughable before 1998 - yet when the occasion arose, the Republicans and their media henchpeople screamed for precisely that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:47 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #170 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Part of me hopes that this scenario does play out - simply because it will be interesting to see just how far the Republicans are willing to go.

But there is a counter argument, and a simple one: peaceful succession is one of the first, and primary, victories of the US constitution, the basis for longest running democratic republic on earth. To attempt to overturn the election by coercive revolt is what makes states like Serbia or Nigeria what they are. Loosing one election is unpleasant, losing peaceful succession is catatstrophe. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 06:51 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #171 of 773

Well, said, Stirling. One of the basic assumptions citizen in this country have always been able to make is that succession will be orderly, and that the will of the people (even of the damn stupid people) will be carried out. The fact that we have been able to trust in that for more than 200 years is a great gift and a profound part of our sense of national identity. Any tampering with that would indeed be a catastrophe. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 07:04 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #172 of 773

I told the husband about the Republicans' new hope (of undoing an electoral college victory). He said, "Oh, it's like Clinton's impeachment." "How so?" I asked. "Republicans are trying to undo the results of a legitimate election." 
(BOOKMARK)

Dean Falcione - 08:33 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #173 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

Didn't GW Bush say that he was in favor of judges who are "strict constitutionists".

The Constitution says that the winner of the EC is the victor.

When it comes to the 2nd Ammendment, the Republicans claim that the Founding Fathers were infallible.

Now, they would claim that the system for electing the President, that those same Founding Fathers put into place over 200 years ago, is unfair and should be abolished.

Cognitive Dissonance. No....ultimate hypocrisy.

If the Limbaughs of the world try to claim that an EC victory is not legitimate if the popular vote goes the other way, they should end their defense of the 2nd Ammendment.

Can't have it both ways. Either the Constitution is infallible and should be strictly adhered to or it is not. What's it gonna be, Wingnuts? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by kittey morgan on 09:33 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:50 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #175 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

If one candidate does indeed win the popular vote while the other wins the electoral vote, I'd expect the Electoral College result to be respected.

But I'd also expect both parties to quickly join forces to support a constitutional amendment that would either abolish the Electoral College, or require 435 of the 538 electors to cast votes according to the majority in each Congressional district instead of winner-take-all by state. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Lodger - 04:42 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #176 of 773
What Would Jesus Do? Immanuel Recount!

Sounds like we're about to see "Bush Rules" vs. the Constitution. Read the top of Gail Sheehy's article in Vanity Fair.

Even if he loses, his friends say, he doesn't lose. He'll just change the score, or change the rules, or make his opponent play until he can beat him. "If you were playing basketball and you were playing to 11 and he was down, you went to 15," says [Doug] Hannah, now a Dallas insurance executive. "If he wasn't winning, he would quit. He would just walk off.... It's what we called Bush Effort: If I don't like the game, I take my ball and go home. Very few people can get away with that."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 04:46 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #177 of 773

Of course the way the system is now is quite cumbersome. But it would be ridiculous to change the rules--and unconstitutional--to get the results you wanted in an election that had already happened. Especially when there have been several precedents for an EC victory in the past.

Lodger, your quote is incredibly germane. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 05:47 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #178 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

The Constitution says that the winner of the EC is the victor.

The outrage of the last few posts, by the way, mirrors what I expect to happen in the country if this scenario does play out. No matter what the eventual result is, I think it will be a significant national crisis -- bigger than, say, Clinton's impeachment. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 05:53 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #179 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Columnist/GOP apparatchik Deborah Orin lays the groundwork for a challenge of election results by Bush.

WE MIGHT NOT KNOW WINNER 'TIL NEW YEAR

THINK it's almost over? Think again - it could be almost Thanksgiving or even after New Year's before we know for sure whether the next president will be named Al Gore or George W. Bush.

That's because out on the West Coast, there will be a deluge of mail ballots - and they won't all get counted right away.

And because if one guy wins the popular vote but not the electoral vote, the winner won't get decided for sure until the Electoral College meets on Dec. 18 and the ballots get counted on Jan. 6.

For the first time, all Oregon ballots will be cast by mail (or dropped off at 240 sites). So will more than half the votes in Washington state and one-third in California....

Or take Florida (25 EVs), a super-tight contest. ABC News this week reported that absentee-ballot requests from Republicans are running 100,000 ahead of Democrats, winning smiles from Team Bush.

But if it's close, that count could drag on. Florida mail ballots are due Election Day. But there's one exception - the state gives a 10-day leeway to 100,000 overseas voters, many of them military folks who tilt pro-GOP.

Then there's the nightmare scenario - the winner of the popular vote loses the Electoral College....

Republicans say they wouldn't just roll over if that happens...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:54 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #180 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

It would be considerably greater, and it would basically polarise the debate for decades to come, it would be something that would seal the view by the left that the right is headed for hitlerism.

Originally the founders thought of the electoral college as a potentially deliberative body, and a backstop against mobocracy. It would be ironic if it were used as a means of creating mobocracy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marie Cook - 05:56 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #181 of 773
This "Yellow-Dog" Democrat is ready to bite those "yellow-belly" Democrats in Congress.

The Republicans intend to overthrow our government if Bush does not win. Impeachment should have been enough warning to everyone to do more to stop them. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 06:00 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #182 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The GOP also wants to try and challenge Missouri law if Ashcroft looses, but the great state of Missouri has rather specific law on the subject, and there is no constitutional challenge possible.

The GOP is running around arguing that if Mel Carnahan wins, then, since he is not an inhabitant of the state, he can't be seated in the Senate, and therefore Ashcroft must be. However, the consitution specifically says that states set the terms for election, and the local law states that if a candidate deceases before the closing of the ballot, a new one is selected by the party. If a candidate dies after the closing of the ballot, and wins, then the seat is immediately declared vacant by the Governor, who may appoint a qualified individual to fill a term that runs until they may be replaced by the winner of the next general election.

In short, so long as the governor's choice for the seat is constitutionally able, there is no challenge possible. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KathieK - 06:00 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #183 of 773
"It is typical of Dubya that he won the election by losing it, since his entire career has been built upon a succession of failures from which he emerged better placed on each occasion." - The Guardian, 1/20/01

We are taking this literally, but it could be intended for a different audience entirely. This message could be a RW GOTV ploy: "Tell them we could still win if we get the popular vote even if not the EC vote, so you go out there and you make sure Bush gets >50%." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ken MacCardle - 06:04 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #184 of 773

I haven't read the entire thread and I apolgize if I say something already covered. The campaign strategies of the candidates have been formed around the existence of the Electoral College. Gore hasn't campaigned in large (CA and NY) states where he had a wide margin in the polls. Nor has he campaigned in the large and small states where the polls indicated no real chance for a win.

Until recently, Bush followed the same strategy. However, Bush's foray into CA recently marked a real departure from the logic of the Electoral College regime. Is Bush trying to establish a fall-back position? Is he trying to reserve for himself the ploy of attacking the Electoral College in the event he loses the EC vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marie Cook - 06:06 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #185 of 773
This "Yellow-Dog" Democrat is ready to bite those "yellow-belly" Democrats in Congress.

Think of a worst case scenario and you should have the Republican position. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KathieK - 06:06 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #186 of 773
"It is typical of Dubya that he won the election by losing it, since his entire career has been built upon a succession of failures from which he emerged better placed on each occasion." - The Guardian, 1/20/01

Marie, that pretty much sums it up for ALL their positions. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 06:07 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #187 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Couldn't this scenario go either way? Why all the emphasis on only one of the two possibilities? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:07 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #188 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Another footnote - electing by district will not change the possibility that the winner of the election will loose the popular vote. Simply because when voting by district, some districts have much higher turn out than others, hence their votes would count more. Further, districts vary in size by a factor of 2. It would be entirely possible for a democratic candidate to carry all of the congressional districts - apportioned by population - in New York City, win the lions share of the electoral votes in New York, and loose the election.

Several gubenatorial races in New York have had exactly this scenario play out.

If people want a popular vote, then there must be either a run off or a preferential system - simply because any other means allows circumstances of the ballot to defeat the popular choice.

The attempts to do away with the college if Gore were to win and Bush were to loose would be doomed to failure, since, in order to enact such legislation they would need to amend the constitution. Several states benefit greatly from the current block voting system, and would not enact such legislation. Several other states benefit from electoral vote over popular vote, and would not vote for an amendment that takes away this advantage.

Even the idea of holding electors to the results of the poll has its problems. Let us imagine that between now and 6 December the winner dies, or is exposed for having done some tremendous misdeed, the ability of the electors to step in would be a tremendous advantage. It is good to have a few rotten boroughs in a system which are never used, but which exist in case of extreme exingency.

What is interesting about this election is that no such real emergency exists, the stakes are so partisan precisely because neither leader represents a clear and credible center to his party and its policies. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:11 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #189 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The greatest argument in favor of the electoral college, historically, is that it delivered to Abraham Lincoln two mandates to the presidency, even though he did not win a majority of the popular vote in the first case. Lincoln was the last third party nominee to capture the presidency (twice). The first time because the election was divided regionally, the second because he ran on "The Union Party" ticket with a democrat as his VP. 
(BOOKMARK)

Davis X. Machina - 06:51 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #190 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

Expect dilatory tactics by the GOP followed by President Cheney...

Meanwhile, the Senate, most likely in Republican hands, cruises right along, doing its constitutional duty of selecting the vice president, in this case Richard B. Cheney.

But if, by Jan. 20, 2001, the House is still deadlocked--Fischbeck reminds us it took the House 36 ballots over six days to pick Thomas Jefferson--then the vice president gets sworn in as president. Voila! President Cheney.

Of course, Cheney could pick Bush to be vice president, subject to confirmation by the House and Senate. Then he could resign and Bush would be president and pick Cheney and so on. . . .

Who says the Founding Fathers didn't have a sense of humor?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:16 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #191 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Hold on here. It can't get into the House or Senate at all unless either the electors are exactly tied at 269-269 (very unlikely) or Ralph Nader carries at least one state (even less likely). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:19 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #192 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

'92 had a serious chance to go to the house. '00 however has a serious chance of electoral victory coupled with popular loss.

But it should be underlined that this is a feature not a bug. The idea is that in such close circumstances favor should be given to the candidate who has shown the widest base of support, rather than the ability to motivate the most ardent supporters 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:28 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #193 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

'92 had a serious chance to go to the house.

1948 and 1968 would have been much more likely. In both of these elections, a whole region voted for a third-party, segregationist candidate. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:40 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #194 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

By the time of the election, this is true, but at various times Perot had been in the lead for the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

Rick Robinson - 07:41 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #195 of 773
"Down to the banana republics; down to the tropical zone ..." -- Jimmy Buffett

Ron --

Couldn't this scenario go either way? Why all the emphasis on only one of the two possibilities?

Bush is much less likely to win a split, because he stands to pile up huge majorities in Texas and other GOP base states.

It can't get into the House or Senate at all unless either the electors are exactly tied at 269-269 (very unlikely)

-- Rick 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J. Buxton - 09:00 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #196 of 773

Michael Long on why Gore faces long odds in the Electoral Vote count.
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:25 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #197 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The national review's analysis is typically slanted. California is in play only in the wildest wet dreams of the GOP. It is correct in noting that Gore, not Bush, has to tie down his base, but the handwaving misses the crucial point: the odds are not long for Gore in the electoral college, they are very long in the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 10:19 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #198 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

Bush's foray into CA recently marked a real departure from the logic of the Electoral College regime. Is Bush trying to establish a fall-back position? Is he trying to reserve for himself the ploy of attacking the Electoral College in the event he loses the EC vote?

They are preparing for a fascist takeover. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:23 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #199 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Bush needed to go to CA to help the Republicans in several house races. The republican polls indicate that he is well ahead enough to win both popular vote (by a plurality) and the EC by a straight majority.

There are currently 6 competitive house races in CA. Enough to swing the house even if the Democrats hold their own everywhere else. Also allows him to maintain his "lead" in the polls which is a key part of the republican campaign strategy - to make it so that the undecided who wants to vote for the winner votes for Bush.

No plot is necessary, the campaign math makes sense, especially since he can play to Oregon and Washington - to crucial democratic take away states. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 10:24 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #200 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I'm curious what would make someone still be undecided between Bush and Gore at this very late date. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maria S. - 10:24 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #201 of 773
I'm sorry, but I'm going to be a bickerer....Alcee Hastings

I'm sorry, I just don't think this will fly. There's gonna still be a hefty percentage of the population that won't vote at all, so neither the popular vote nor the EC REALLY represent the will of all the people. I think most Americans will just think they are sore losers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:29 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #202 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Voter apathy is currently part of the system. One of the growing possibilities is that electronic democracy may well change that. Currently it is a productive strategy to discourage the othersides weak supporters. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pinwiz - 10:32 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #203 of 773
"Jeff’s shirt is briefly ignited and he dashes to the river screaming, 'Oh my god, I’m flaming!' 'Tell us something we don’t know,' mutters Alicia." - ModernHumorist.com on _Survivor_

Anyway, here's the real kicker: If the EC/Popular vote split happens, would the anti-EC people have the power to make it through the difficult Constitutional Amendment Process? Would the country ratify it?

I think I need to look up the Amendment process for myself... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:33 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #204 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

It is unlikely - it takes 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states - or conventions, which would be a real wild ride. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:38 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #205 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Conventions would be interesting. Has either the federal constitutional convention or the provision for state conventions ever been used? 
(BOOKMARK)

Monty G. - 10:38 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #206 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

God, I do hate always being right.

Check this out:

GOP manipulates online polls. use of net to coordinate warriors

read the whole thing. this what democracy is up against. here is an excerpt.

Some of Bush's acceleration in the polls was likely due to the efforts of Larry Purpuro, the deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee.

His other title, though unofficial, is RNC "technology czar," and over the last year Purpuro has been cobbling together a list of Republican e-mail addresses that has become one of the key factors in the campaign. Purpuro's list also might have helped Bush emerge as the popular victor after the first debate.

The message e-mailed to GOP faithful after the debate was simple: Go to CNN, MSNBC, and other Internet news sites, and make yourselves known. Vote early, and often, in the online polls.

"On CNN, I think we were ahead 2-to-1 at one point," Purpuro said. And to the extent that online polls matter in changing a campaign's "momentum" by indicating, at the very least, which candidate's supporters feel more strongly, the Republicans beat the Democrats handily. By the second debate, nobody was asking whether Bush would get his name right.

"We started in July of 1999 with about 17,000 e-mails," Purpuro said, referring to the project he heads at the RNC, called "e.GOP." Purpuro is charged with getting the party wired, and he said that one of his priorities has been assembling the e-mail list.

Now, with the million-name list, the party can target messages to its constituents based on geography, age, and gender. And when it comes to fund raising, they can sort even finer than that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:40 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #207 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

The greatest argument in favor of the electoral college, historically, is that it delivered to Abraham Lincoln two mandates to the presidency, even though he did not win a majority of the popular vote in the first case. Lincoln was the last third party nominee to capture the presidency (twice). The first time because the election was divided regionally, the second because he ran on "The Union Party" ticket with a democrat as his VP.

Hold on here. It can't get into the House or Senate at all unless either the electors are exactly tied at 269-269 (very unlikely) or Ralph Nader carries at least one state (even less likely).

Also, Republicans could try to dig up dirt on Dmocratic electors, with an eye toward getting some of them to step aside in disgrace. Since all electors are party hacks, that my not be very hard. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:41 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #208 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Why would it be to the Republicans' advantage to manipulate polling data? This will only corrupt the input to their own targeting strategy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 10:41 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #209 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

God I do hate having to read about how RIGHT Monte is in every damn thread. Learn some e-courtesy will ya? 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 10:42 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #210 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I don't think an elector can resign, and if he did I think he'd be replaced by a member of the same party. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:46 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #211 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

GOP manipulates online polls

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 10:50 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #212 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

heck, when they're bragging about civil wars and overturning elections that doesn't surprise me. None of this surprises me as I've said it was going on for years.

What IS new is the sheer volume of dollars involved , the infobase (odd for people who supposedly want to "protect" info from intrusion, so I guess there needs to be a clause "except for political operators" and "except for big business marketers")

they've no doubt got databases and databases of target info and activists (and enemies) by now.

just want everyone to know what the republic is up against in case anyone still thinks the polls are meaningful or that this isn't serious stuff. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ben Tracadie - 11:23 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #213 of 773

The odds of a popular vote/ electoral vote split are increasing by the day. Electoral College lead today!

Today's National Journal Hotline Electoral Vote tally based on the most recent state polls favors Gore. Based on this, if Gore wins either Florida or Pennsylvania plus Maine or New Mexico or Washington, he wins. National Journal is not at all Gore tilted. It plays it fairly straight, although right winger, Michael Kelly, is the editor.

Gore's EV advantage is interesting given the EV boost Bush gets by leading in 28 states vs. Gore's 17. The 11 state advantage gives Bush 22 more electoral votes than he would have if electoral votes were purely representative of relative population sizes. They are not since each state gets 2 votes automatically (two senators plus number of house members).

Incidentally, if Republicans want to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC after this election, the Democrats should agree not only on principle, but also because, in general, the Republicans are more likely to benefit from a popular/electoral vote split. Not this year though. 
(BOOKMARK)

bunnie1 - 12:13 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #214 of 773

Sharing an interesting excerpt; may be helpful for those still undecided:

"For those who enjoy analyzing correlation, the November Money magazine published the following in view of the presidential election this year. The figures are based on the Dow Jones average annual return between March 4, 1901 to August 25, 2000."

President/ Congress/ Dow Jones Ind.Avg./

Democrat/ Democrat/ 6.6%/ Democrat/ Republican/ 10.7%/ Republican/ Republican/ 1.3%/ Republican/ Democrat/ 6.3%/ 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 12:47 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #215 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

There are three things the Demos can do to avoid this problems (and I'm sure are doing two of them).

1) Campaign hard -- win the popular vote and it gets harder for repubs to do this. (Done Deal -- I don't think the Demo activists are going home to sit on their hands.)

2) Choose really loyal Demos as Electors (even if they are "political hacks"). Again already done --I mean who will the Democrats choose - Republicans?

3)Lastly -- and this is the only thing not currently being done -- start and ad/public relations media campaig should Gore win the electoral college and not the popular vote. We have been warned what the Republicans are planning to pull: so the day after the election if the popular vote is even close the Demos need to start their own campaign against changing the rules after the game is over. I think such a campaign could do a lot with the spoiled little boy taking his ball and going home theme suggested by others here. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 12:50 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #216 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Ohhh I dunno. i think if either candidate wins the EC and not the Pop, there is going to be some re-evaluation. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 12:52 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #217 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Yeah, but let re-evaluation take place for the next election. Get rid of the obsolete electoral college -- but not for the election that has just been fought by both candidates under it's rules. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 12:53 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #218 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Ohh I agree. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 12:55 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #219 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

I always thought the EC was a sham anyway. Regardless of our lil' World Series analogy someone posted upthread. What the EC does is take votes away from the minority bloc within each state. How frustrating for a progressive living in say Wyoming. Or for a conservative living in NY.

And why should Cali get the lions share if they have poor voter turnout?? Huh? 
(BOOKMARK)

T Boggioni - 01:00 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #220 of 773
Taking political advice from a Nader supporter is kind of like taking swimming lessons from Natalie Wood.

why should Cali get the lions share

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 01:13 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #221 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Yeah, and look at us, we have the lions share of EC votes, and the candidates aren't paying much attention to us.

It's all those puny "battleground" states with 6 or 7 EC votes that are getting all the attention.

Oooops, wait a second, maybe that's not really bad after all. I really don't want non-stop political ads anyway.

Nevermind. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 01:25 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #222 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Cause we're a bitchin' state.

If you're such a 'bitchin' state, then get your asses out there and vote en masse and earn your influence the correct way. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 01:27 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #223 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Yeah, and look at us, we have the lions share of EC votes, and the candidates aren't paying much attention to us.

Because there are a lesser percentage of Pubs and Indies than there are Dems... so whats the point.

BTW ending the EC would have a positive effect on voter turnout. But who wants that? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:28 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #224 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Rj: what state are you in? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 01:28 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #225 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

CA 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:37 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #226 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I thought California was a big battleground state right now? 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 01:39 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #227 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Media Myth 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Bertelson - 01:43 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #228 of 773
"But his body-gaurds & silver-cane were no match for the Jack-of-Hearts..."

One thing positive about the EC--it FORCES the candidates to get off their lazy asses & actually meet the voters in some of the states. Otherwise both major candidates would sit back, do infomericals & blitz the major media markets EXCLUSIVELY.

Rick 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
kittey morgan - 03:39 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #229 of 773

I am very dismayed in what I am reading here regardingthe EC. The forefathers did this for a reason, it should NOT be abused and eliminated just because a candidate may have won the popular vote but not the EC votes. It has worked for over 200 some years there is NO need to get rid of it. We are talking about our history here, not someone's whim nor a banana republic system of winning. God help us if we come to that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 03:47 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #230 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

I am very dismayed in what I am reading here regardingthe EC. The forefathers did this for a reason,

Ya, they didn't trust a bunch of ignorant farmers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 03:48 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #231 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

What are saying Kitty?? Banana republic? Are you saying the people aren't to be trusted? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 04:03 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #232 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

I think she's saying the system's not broken so why "fix" it?

The EC is a safeguard against a regional candidate becoming president racking up a huge vote in his own region while doing so-so everywhere else.

Like what's happening right now. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 05:10 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #233 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Five reasons why the electoral college is a good thing:

1. It forces the winner to have a geographically broad base of support.

2. It grants mandates in close elections to even plurality presidents, this includes Clinton, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson.

3. It gives a preferential voice to smaller states, which otherwise might be ignored entirely.

4. It limits the scope of vote fraud to a single state, and limits the effectiveness of geographically based inducements to vote.

5. It reinforces the connection between the national and the state campaigns, since the campaign of the state is not merely to deliver total votes, but the state as a whole to a coalition able to govern.

The popular vote does none of these things. Direct popular election agrees with the electoral college almost all of the time, but the existance of the electoral college forces a greater geographic range to campaigns, so that even those campaigns which can win a popular majority in one area of the country must contest the entire country, or be shown to be more limited in appeal. The electoral math boltsers the party that wins, but it also bolsters the dissenters from those regions which did not vote for the winning party. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 05:59 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #234 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Not sure all these things are an advantage. Why are geographical minorities more important to protect than any other group? Instead of giving Montanans more votes per person than Californians, why not give people of color extra votes to protect them against being outvoted by the white majority?

Seems if you are looking at people subject to "tyranny of the majority" there is no contest here. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:49 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #235 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

1. Representation to congress is based on geography.

2. Many policies have disproprotionate local impact. Therefore one desires a system where the impact of pork on areas of high concentration of population is more limited.

3. Geographic minorities are often cultural minorities.

As for the hows and wherefores of the Great Compromise, Madison's explanation is best. Though some elaboration is now necessary. Small states in population are either geographically small, or sparsely populated. The geographically small states are disproportionately dependant on the national economy and therefore need greater protection, and the sparsely populated states are resource extraction states, whose economies are easier to disrupt by national policy.

The advantage in EC votes per person which Montana has is offset by the advantage that one can swing more electoral votes per percentatge of swing voters. Consider that it would take a 10 point shift to deliver Idaho to the democrats - which would take large concessions to do - for a net gain of 3 votes. However, a swing of 2 percent will swing Michigan's 18 votes. Hence the power of large states comes from the winner take all nature of the contest.

The two alternatives - by district and by popular vote - have great defects.

First, because it would reduce the race to what amount to competative districts, which are a narrow basis.

Second it would increase the power of gerrymandering, which is already to great in the present system.

Third it would put more power to smaller states, since swinging one district swings three votes in small states, where as all other districts swing one with a smaller possibility of swinging more.

The direct popular election is a bad idea for reasons outlined above. While the EC can, occasionally, produce an strange situation - once after the present form of it was put into place - it has more often taken a muddled popular vote and produced a clear mandate to govern. Which is the point. 
(BOOKMARK)

Pinwiz - 07:13 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #236 of 773
"Jeff’s shirt is briefly ignited and he dashes to the river screaming, 'Oh my god, I’m flaming!' 'Tell us something we don’t know,' mutters Alicia." - ModernHumorist.com on _Survivor_

Here's the real kicker for me. Sure, the outcome of this election is making us focus on the Electoral College and the election process in general. Personally, I think that the focus is a good thing.

However, I'd rather that all this time and energy that we will be using on the EC be focused on the Primary system. It needs to be changed. What percentage of the country has absolutely no say in the nomination of the candidates? Why does it have to be spread out over multiple weeks, making the later states vote when a candidate already has the statistical majority of votes?

Isn't that an inherently bigger flaw in the system? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:51 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #237 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The primary system is flawed because of the stupidity of being an "independant" voter, and people's desires to choose in the general election as if it were a primary.

The purpose of a multi-stage primary election system is winnow out candidates, on the general reasoning that no one can be insincere forever. Or at least, those that can can probably do it fo 4 years as well as 1.

The entire thrust of most theoretical discussion - how to translate preference into election - misses the main reason for an election - to select the best person for the job. The campaign is the process by which a candidate proves able to govern. Any amount of making it easier for people to pick the brand they want is actually rather stupid, since people will often choose the worst of alternatives, not the best. Barriers between bias and realisation are, in fact, the reason for the success of the American Federal system.

What is broken is not that people can't choose the person they want, it is that they system no longer rewards candidates most suited to govern. This is something which is a much more complex problem than merely changing the voting system. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:05 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #238 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Getting back to the EC, one scary aspect of a potential crisis is that if the election goes to the House, each state gets one vote. How undemocratic is that? A state with roughly the population of Staten Island gets the same vote as New York State. And as you know if you've seen the electoral maps, Bush has lots more states than Gore -- he just has low-populatio states. Many sparesly populated Western states have solidly GOP congressional delegations. So Bush wins that contest no matter what happens, right? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:12 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #239 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The exact tie case is, currently a very bad system, agreed. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:17 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #240 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

It could have been avoided entirely if the DC constitutional amendment had assigned it 4 electors instead of 3 ... 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 10:20 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #241 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Not entirely, because one can still have faithless electors, and more than 2 candidates winning. It is one of those loose ends that should have been fixed with the amendment on presidential succession. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:21 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #242 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I wouldn't assume that a tie is the only way the election would go to the House. Obviously it goes there if a third-party candidate deprives both major-party candidates of a majority by winning some states. But I think it could also go to the House if certification of election results doesn't take place by the EC's voting day. Think the GOP would hesitate to hold up certification ("Gosh, these darn absentee ballots take so long to count!") if there's a close race in, say, Jeb Bush's Florida or Tom Ridge's Pennsylvania and Gore seems to be winning there? And I also think voter fraud allegations and allegations of scandal about certain electors can hold things up. Remember how many angles the GOP played to destroy Bill Clinton. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:24 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #243 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

One of the unfortunate side effects of having a republican party that has, several times, in the last half century stooped below the boundaries of decency, is that it creates a pervasive sense that nothing is beneath them. This may or may not be true, but in any case it is bad for the Republic. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 11:40 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #244 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

Steve M. 11/3/00 10:21am

The Senate certifies the VP, who would then have to act as president while the house drags its feet... Hello, President Cheney! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Pierson - 04:16 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #245 of 773
People before property. Property has no rights. People have rights to property, but that right is not absolute.

One reason why the EC should be eliminated, thru the process of a constitutional amendment, is the current situation where both candidates are already staking out positions to overturn or corrupt it in the event of a split decision.

All arguements about the merits of the system become moot when candidates plan on making an end run around it anyway. The extensive Bush plans, and the likelyhood they would succeed, means that the EC system is already dead.

A Bush (or Gore) challenge of the EC system would be several times more divisive than the recent impeachment show, and even more destructive. I would fully expect it to lead to even greater levels of mindless partisanship at the expense of governance. My paranoid side sees the potential of political violence escalating as well.

There is no longer a question of if the EC should be abondoned, it already has been on a de facto basis, the openly talked about Bush plan means the deal is already done. It is imperative that it be eliminated legally as well.

As for Strict Constuctionism, that is a load of dung which means nothing, or rather means whatever its adherents wants it to mean. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 05:48 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #246 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Simply because people make plans does not mean that they will bear fruit. Have some faith in the weight of the constitutional government, and the realisation that will hang on every elector to do what is right - to vote as they were elected. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 05:54 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #247 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Stirling, what about the fact that the EC leads to a situation where parts of the country get over-saturated with the campaign, while other parts (like our own state) get almost none? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:14 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #248 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

So would popular vote, as candidates would spend all of their time in areas where they could get the most pure turnout. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 06:16 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #249 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Doubt the ratio would be as high. I would strongly reccomend that if the electoral college is eliminated that we also introduce some form of preference voting. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:26 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #250 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Where as I feel that the evidence indicates that preferential voting would have prevented many of our greatest presidents from reaching office, including Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman.

As I have noted on the ISV forum: preferential voting rewards divided majorities over committed minorities. Since committed minorities, for better or for worse, are generally those most interested in enacting change, and most capable of doing it, it would prevent change oriented parties from capturing the white house in crucial circumstances. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:36 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #251 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

A while back, someone mentioned that John F. Kennedy received a minority of the popular vote in 1960, even though he got more votes than Nixon. How did this happen? There was no third-party candidate that year (as there was in 1948, 1968 and 1992). 
(BOOKMARK)

Purcell Edgar - 06:37 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #252 of 773
I know what the word "media" means. It's plural for "mediocre." -- Rocky Bridges

Actually, Kennedy got more popular votes than Nixon, but just barely -- approximately 120,000.

The EC spread was broader, with Kennedy pulling just over 300 votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:40 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #253 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

To my knowledge the 20th century plurality presidents have been Wilson (I), Truman, Nixon (I), Clinton (I and II) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:08 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #254 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Stirling,

Kennedy too. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 08:28 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #255 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

If Kennedy got more votes than Nixon but didn't get a majority, who got the rest of the votes? Gus Hall? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:35 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #256 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Don't remember (actually, I wasn't born yet)

Just remember, Kennedy got something like 49.7% of the vote, to Nixon's 49.5%. It was very close. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Purcell Edgar - 08:45 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #257 of 773
I know what the word "media" means. It's plural for "mediocre." -- Rocky Bridges

I wasn't born yet either, but my trusty World Almanac and Book of Facts says that Kennedy received 34,227,096 popular votes and 303 EC votes, Nixon received 34,108,546 popular votes and 219 EC votes, and Sen. Harry F. Byrd (D-VA) received 15 EC votes (not sure how many popular votes). 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 08:58 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #258 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

In looking up 2 web sites ...

I found one that shows your number for Kennedy, and neither site shows your number for Nixon (but they are close).

Byrd got 15 EC votes, Alabama 6, Missippi 8, and Oklahoma 1

One site, breakdown has:

Kennedy: 34,226,731
Nixon: 34,108,157
Socialist Labor: 47,522
Unpledged Electors: 116,248
Others: 339,561

I have no clue what "Unpledge Electors" means.

The site for this is at: (The PDF file is big)

http://www.klipsan.com

The National Archives site has your number for Kennedy, but a different number for Nixon (34,107,646). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 11:49 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #259 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Earlier someone argued that intense minorities should beat divided majorities.

Roosevelt (who I think was the greatest President of this century ) was the product of a majority -- not an intense minority.

Lincoln won a plurality I believe. He was an extremely shrewd politician, and might well have won in a preferential voting system.

At any rate no one could have anticipated how well Lincoln would govern -- maybe not even Lincoln. His career in politics had been that of a hack, a log-roller -- perhaps a bit shrewder than average but without any sign of greatness. I wonder if he himself knew what he was capable of.

At any rate -- these days the "intense" minorities are of money, not passion or principle. The argument for preferring our current system to majority rule no longer applies when money is the only minority protected. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dean Falcione - 11:52 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #260 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

RJ Heaney,

Saw your letter read on Covuto's show tonight...about his big head.

good one! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:04 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #261 of 773

I can see arguments either way on this topic. But what I CANNOT see is changing the results of the CURRENT election that has been run according to these rules. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nancy Richardson - 07:19 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #262 of 773
A man without as much mental agility as a lump of lead or a block of wood,a man whose utter stupidity is only paralleled by his immorality,can have lots of people at his beck & call,just because he happens to possess a large pile of gold.T.MoreUtopia

One candidate wins the popular vote. Another candidate wins the Electoral College. What happens?

Kenneth Heintz - 09:28 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #263 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

Ron Newman:

• If the winning candidate polled 51% in all the states he took (and scraped by with 270 EV), while the loser got 100% in all his states, the loser would possibly have as much as 75% of the popular vote.
• This effect would be exacerbated if the loser won (with overwhelming majorities) the high-population states, since the EC is slightly skewed toward small states (min. 3 EV, even if you're Wyoming with half a million residents).
• This effect would be further exacerbated if the loser's states all had very heavy turnout, and the winner's states had light turnout.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:39 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #264 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

It is also possible for a major party candidate to be revealed as a foreign spy. But the question is about credible outcomes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 09:47 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #265 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

According to pundits (who may not know what they are talking about) there is a one in five chance of a narrow popular vote winner being defeated by an electoral college winner.

And She-Ra, you are aboslutely right; there is no excuse for trying to change this retroactively. Bush has already said that if Gore wins the electoral vote, and loses the popular vote, Bush will campaign among Gore electors to change vote for Bush.

(I wonder by the way if this plan is confined to Bush winning the popular vote. Once the votes are counted Novemember 8th, it would be perfectly legal for Bush to campaign among Gores electors until the actual electoral college vote is held in January. Bush has a long history of trying to change the rules whenever he starts losing.)

If this happens Gore will need to mount a counter-campaign. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 10:36 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #266 of 773

Actually, very few electors have changed their votes throughout history, from what I've seen. And it would be a terrible violation of their responsibility to the people who chose them to be the electors. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Westerner - 03:13 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #267 of 773

Most people do not even pretend to understand that in voting we are not voting for Bush or for Gore but for a Slate of Electors in the State in which the vote is cast.

These electors are actually human beings selected by the political party of the state to cast the electoral votes of the state.

But there is no law on the books--NONE--that I know of which COMPEL a Gore elector to cast his or her electoral vote for Gore when the electors meet on the floor of the House of Representatives in January to do so.

It is even conceivable that a Gore elector might cast his electoral vote for Bush, or vice versa, if suitably [ahem!] "motivated" to do so.

Electors are picked because they are party faithfuls but I wouldn't put it past the Bush team, if, for example, they have won the popular vote, to get one or more Gore electors to switch sides so that the popular vote winner becomes POTUS.

This election may very well turn out to be the most contentious and weird election this country has had in a good long time. 
(BOOKMARK)

Gar Lipow - 03:34 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #268 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

If Bush tries this I don't know what his chances of success are. It is legal to do this, however wrong. (And since when has Bush let either the law or morality stand in the way of doing what he wants?) Now Gore has to concentrate right now on winning the election. But November 8th, one of his strategists will need to skip the second half of the victory party, and plan how to counter this. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 03:38 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #269 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

I bet Dubya's gang will try to get Gore electors to switch their votes even if Dubya loses the popular and electoral votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kenneth Heintz - 03:39 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #270 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

It's kinda hard to see what inducement Bush Inc. would have to persuade Gore electors to change their votes. However, given the contempt the GOP has for the electoral process, one probably ought to anticipate feverish opposition research directed at those Gore electors. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 03:41 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #271 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

I bet Dubya's gang will try to get Gore electors to switch their votes even if Dubya loses the opular and electoral votes.

I don't this this will be difficult to crush -- as long as Gore fights back instead of relying on the loyalty of his electors without reminders from him as to where there loyalty should lie. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 03:42 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #272 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

The President, when inaugurated, takes an oath to protect the constitution. If that president got to the inauguration by subverting the constitution, there is no way his office could be seen as legitimate...

If the Republicans want to change the constitution, they should get to work and change it the right way, by proposing an amendment. But they won't, since the EC usually actually favors the candidate from a rural constituency... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kenneth Heintz - 03:47 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #273 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

In the very unlikely event that the Bush folks try to steal the election from Gore, I am totally up for a(n un)civil disobedience campaign. I am entirely willing to travel to DC for same. I will totally raise hell before such a thing ever comes to pass. 
(BOOKMARK)

Gar Lipow - 03:52 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #274 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Pierre -- unfortunately this would NOT be subverting the constitution.

The original intent of the founders was that the electoral college be a group of wise men , mostly uncommitted to any one candidate, elected by the people to choose the best candidate. Their idea was that the U.S. was so large, no one would have a nationall reputation and be widely know, so that direct election was impractical and undesirable.

However in this case the founders were nuts. The U.S. had leaders with national reputations from the beginning, and the people who chose electors generally said "to hell with picking a wise man. The only thing an elector does is pick the president, and I know who I want to be president. I don't care what kind of man my elector is; I want someone who will vote for my candidate". So, in practice, and by custom the electoral college has become a way for to elect the winner of the popular vote. (There have been, of course, several exceptionss.)

By campaigning for electoral votes, after popular election is over, Bush would be violating custom and long standing practice. He would be violating neither the law nor the letter of the cosntitution. This does not mean we should let him get away with this. But the basis for opposing it is that it is wrong -- not that it is illegal or unconsitutional. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 03:55 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #275 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Kenneth Heinz - don't know how unlikely it is; Bush and his campaign have never had a whole lot of scruples. If he loses this one, he is unlikely to get a second shot. He has a bunch of skeletons -- by 2004 some of the more deadly ones will have de-closeted.

Having no honor nor integrity to begin with, what does he have to lose by trying this?

In fact, the Bush campaign has already said they would do this if they won the popular vote but lost in number of electors. The only question is whether they would try this in a straight loss of both the popular and electoral votes. And I don't really see what they would have to lose by trying -- given that they already lack honor or integrity. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 03:56 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #276 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

Gar, come to think of it, you are right. I stand corrected. I believe that some states require their electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, but I don't know how many. In any case, that's a matter of state law, and not the constitution.

It's still called stealing the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 04:00 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #277 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Absolutely Pierre - no one said it is right -- only that it is legal. In terms of state laws -- such laws do exist, but have never been enforced. Any way, if this is tried -- the main point would be make sure the campaign was not one-sided. To make sure there was as vigorous a campaign by Gore to keep his electors loyal, as by Bush to urge them to be faithless. 
(BOOKMARK)

Westerner - 04:01 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #278 of 773

The Electoral College voting method is one of the unique features of the American elections and serves a quite good end in that it virtually prohibits splinter parties from forming, as the point was that a popular winner in a State gets ALL of that State's electoral votes. That makes it virtually impossible for a splinter party to survive since they could have little hope of ever getting any Electoral votes.

This is the theory in winner-take-all States, such as in California and in most of the States of the Union, but some States, such as Maine, with, let us assume, 1 1electoral votes, apportion electoral votes in accordnace with the popular vote [say Gore gets 40% of the popular votes and Bush 60% of the popular votes in Maine, then Gore gets 4 of Maine's electoral votes and Bush gets 6 of those electoral votes.]

The whole idea behind the electoral college was to cut out minority or splinter parties; and, on the whole, it works and prevents the kind of instability in some of the European countries where coalitions form AFTER the vote in order to control the government instead of the USA system where coalitions must form BEFORE the vote in order to garner the needed electoral votes to win. Further here, and unlike Europe, the offices [Pres., Sen., Congress] are held a specific number of years and the government does not fall in between elections, as in Europe, where a falling out of a coalition means that the government must fall and new elections must be had.

Thus the Electoral College serves a purpose, but every once in a while the oddities of the system show up. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:41 am PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #279 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I will note that trying to change the minds of electors is not unconstitutional, and in fact was the original vision of the founders - that they be free to vote for whoever once elected. However an election or two thrown to the house and resulting loss of mandate put an end to that - from there on in the tradition, sometimes backed by law was to vote as you were elected to. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 11:05 am PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #280 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

when the electors meet on the floor of the House of Representatives in January

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Piotr Berman - 01:02 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #281 of 773
Brilliant Left: let them abolish Roe vs Wade and then ride the backlash. Brilliant Right: bring the recession now, and then ride the recovery.

Actually, the split vote is possible only for Nebraska and Maine. Nebraska has 5 congresional seats. In their system, in each congressional district a delegate is elected, winner takes all. The two extra electors are chosen on statewide winner takes all basis.

If I recall, Maine, with two districts, is similar. So Maine can split 3-1, never 2-2. 
(BOOKMARK)

Piotr Berman - 01:08 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #282 of 773
Brilliant Left: let them abolish Roe vs Wade and then ride the backlash. Brilliant Right: bring the recession now, and then ride the recovery.

The most significan effect of EC is that it protects the states with low voters attendance. Without EC, attendance would be crucial everywhere, and it could benefit a favorite son (or daughter) of a very populous state. Say that you have someone EXTREMALLY popular in CA and quite controversial elsewhere. When Constitution was written, Virginia had 20% of population and it was important to decrease the inherent advantage of Virginians. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rob B. - 03:04 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #283 of 773
straightway dangerous, and handled with a chain

This is a fascinating thread. It's starting to look very possible that Gore will lose the nationwide popular vote yet win 270 or more electoral votes.

I have no problem with the winner-take-all assignment of electoral votes, but I do wonder why we need electors to cast those votes. How well do you know the electors for whom you will be voting on Nov. 7? One of them might be Ross Perot's crazy aunt.

If the EC does select a President who has not won a plurality of the popular vote, there will surely be widespread sentiment for a constitutional amendment. How do you think the amendment would be initiated --- could we have an actual constitutional convention? What fun! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Piotr Berman - 04:35 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #284 of 773
Brilliant Left: let them abolish Roe vs Wade and then ride the backlash. Brilliant Right: bring the recession now, and then ride the recovery.

I think if some electors would switch the vote and decide for the other side, they would need to live in a guarded community for considerable time. Verbal abuse alone would be considerable. I would not risk it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 04:56 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #285 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Dean Falcione 11/3/00 11:52pm

I couldn't belive they printed it. But come on, which looks bigger, Cavuto's head or O'Reilly's ego? They're both HUGE!!!! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Pierson - 05:07 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #286 of 773
People before property. Property has no rights. People have rights to property, but that right is not absolute.

I posted an arguement that the EC must be eliminated because it was, with the Bush announcement, already dead in fact. As the current discussion illustrates, there is nothing, except for some state laws ,which actually bind the electors to vote as their state does.

To show how dangerous this could be it is possible to consider, as some do above, that even a loser of the popular vote could try to change the outcome. I doubt anyone would try this but it is in the realm of possibility.

At least the EC could be changed so that in place of electors there is a simple scorecard.

As I said before, all the nice logical arguements about the merits of the system wouldn't amout to squat if someone, say Bush, successfully thwarts the system. I am not kidding when I say there could be blood in the streets or at least a political landscape so polarized it would make the Newt era look like a love fest. 
(BOOKMARK)

(Deleted message originally posted by Rob B. on 05:45 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RA Yates - 05:51 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #288 of 773
Die Krankheit unserer Zeit ist der Perfektionismus. Konrad Adenauer

It is possible that Maine's non-winner take all EC votes could be decisive. If Gore takes MI, PA, and FL but loses Wisconsin, Delaware, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and New Hampshire, then how Maine splits could decide who has 270 votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 10:55 am PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #289 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Aren't there 2 non winner take all states? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Hicken - 11:39 am PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #290 of 773
but it did happen

Yes. Nebraska is the other one. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
monsterghost - 11:57 am PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #291 of 773
....

is gore likely to get 1 electoral vote from nebraska, even though bush is likely to win the state? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Hicken - 12:06 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #292 of 773
but it did happen

I've heard that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:08 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #293 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I think a split would be more likely in Maine, if the districts are metro-Portland vs the rest of the state. I don't know how they are actually drawn. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
monsterghost - 12:09 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #294 of 773
....

i know i've heard this about ME, and even read a bit on the technicalities of ME electoral vote distribution to see that this indeed might be so, but was unsure if NE's distribution set up was similar to ME's, in that it would result in a similar tally.

i do know NE doesn't have (just like ME) a 'winner take all' distribution as regards the overall vote in the state. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 12:25 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #295 of 773

Probably not because the electors are tied to congressional districts (the winner takes all formula still applies). An interesting reform might divide electors by the popular vote within a state (then Gore would take 40% of the electors in Texas, Bush would take a fraction of Massachusetts, Nader might win one or two in California). That system would put third parties in an interesting position, now that I think of it, because electors could throw their votes to a different candidate (ergo it's not likely).

We should do away with the Electoral College, it's the appendix of our political system. The US has amended its constitution a few times to change how people are elected (eg. Pres and VP now run on the same ticket, Senators are now elected by a popular vote and not state legislators).

I don't think the EC and PV is going to split in this election but if it does the only way it will matter is if the difference is 1 or 2 votes and one or two cranks in the leading party switches to favor the PV winner. This will not create a constitutional crisis, those votes would stand, that's how our system works and it would be no dumber than the other outcome.

In either case some large fraction of the public would consider the winning candidate compromised (not illegitimate but not fully deserving of support). I've talked to a lot of people lately who have just discovered that we have an EC most of them don't like it (the less someone follows politics the more likely he or she is not to like it, that's my sense). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 12:50 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #296 of 773

A few more thoughts on compromised presidents. When JQ Adams beat Andrew Jackson in 1828 (lost the PV but won it in the House of Representitives) Jackson came back with a vengence four years later and ended up with more influence than he might have had if he'd won earlier.

When Benjamin Harrison beat incumbent Grover Cleveland in 1888 (lost the PV but won the EC) Mrs. Cleveland told White House servants to take care of all the furniature because she'd be back in four years. That happened, Harrison lasted one term, Cleveland was elected easily.

If someone wins the election without winning the PV (likely Gore) or wins the EC through chicanery (likely Bush) I think it's likely that the new president would last for one term and the chances are good the losing candidate would come back with a vengence.

Neither of these scenarios involve "stealing an election" (legally) but such an outcome would tag the winner as a "politician" and the loser would gain sympathy. Another reason, in my opinion, to do away with the whole thing. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 06:00 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #297 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I take back just about everything I've said in this thread.

One candidate apparently did win the popular vote and another candidate apparently won the Electoral College. Unfortunately, the guy with the most popular votes is a typical member of my party, the Democratic Party, and is, therefore, a pathetic milquetoast. He apparently has no intention of challenging this travesty of democracy.

I said all along that the GOP would have a point if it challenged the legitimacy of a Gore EC victory in a race in which Bush won more popular votes. The GOP planned to do just that. Good for the GOP. This sucks. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:10 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #298 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Well, what could still happen is Gore tying the Florida result up in a lawsuit, delaying them long enough that Florida can't seat any electors by December 18. That would deny either candidate a majority, sending the election to the House of Representatives. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ronald Helfrich - 06:21 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #299 of 773

1. Kevin I agree with you that a proportional system would be better. It would also be more democratic.

2. If either Bush or Gore had any honour (and assuming the result does not change with the recount in Florida), they would call for a government of national unity in which both Bush and Gore acted as co-presidents (just as the leaders of parties serve as co-prime ministers in parliamentary unity governments).

3. While the rules of the game are clear--the electoral vote is what counts--I am uncomfortable with a situation in which the individual who has won the popular vote loses the election (something that has happened in the US before).

4. Perhaps this is the time for rethinking the electoral college, which is a hangover from landed aristocracy limited franchise days.

5. Perhaps it is also time to rethink the winner take all election mentality in the US.

6. Finally, do any of you think that in a close election the electoral college serves to give smaller states greater power in the electoral system? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 06:22 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #300 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

That would deny either candidate a majority, sending the election to the House of Representatives.

And, as anyone who looked at an electoral map knows, virtually every sparsely populated state is a GOP state. So a House election is a Bush election. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:23 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #301 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Stirling, what happened to your theory that the electoral college is supposed to give the new president a mandate? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cohen - 06:49 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #302 of 773
No death penalty for the retarded--give Shrub a life sentence instead.

Of course the electoral college gives additional power to small states. Each state gets two extra votes not related to its population. Take these two extra electoral votes away from each state and Gore would have won the electoral vote even without Florida. (Not to mention how the small states are "empowered" if the vote gets thrown to the House.)

Just one more element(together with the outmoded voter registration system, campaign funding laws, holding elections on a work day, barring some ex-convicts from voting, refusing to allow "second-choice" voting) that deviate from democracy. Change any one of these elements, not to mention all of them, and Gore wins this election easily. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Augie - 06:55 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #303 of 773

Well, it's just happened again. Thank you Ralph Nader for depriving the American people of their popular choice. You've screwed the country and you've screwed your party and you've screwed your cause. There will be no progressives at the table when Bush rules. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ronald Helfrich - 06:58 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #304 of 773

alright, more demonising rhetoric...michel foucault...where are you???...joe mccarthy where are you??? hey, why don't you blame it on cain goreswhores?

again, according to analysts nader's voters were "very unlikely" voters (in other words, if Nader was not in the race they probably would not have voted). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Augie - 07:04 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #305 of 773

Ronald Helfrich 11/8/00 6:58am

It's not rocket science. Look at Florida and New Hamphsire. Nader handed Bush the presidency. Nader always had a choice. He could have been inside the tent working for change, or pretending to be some sort of populist movement, which he did. Those Nader voters made the difference in Florida, there's no doubt about it. If only 10% of them voted for Gore, we would have been spared four years of Bush. Some progressives can't seem to get through their heads that there comes a time where we actually have to put down our signs of opposition and work for constructive change.

Thank you Ralph. You'll have a whole lot more rude and crude sign carriers while Alaskan wilderness is converted into Exxon property. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ronald Helfrich - 07:07 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #306 of 773

you are right it isn't rocket science. the fact is, and i am sorry if this disturbs your manichean world of simulated good and evil, nader's voters (like ventura's in minnesota's gubernatorial election) were very likely non-voters . In other words they would not have voted either for Gore or Bush. Thus to follow out the logic, ten percent of them would not have voted for Goreborewhore because they would not have voted . perhaps democrats could resurrect richard daley snr. to deal with that problem. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Augie - 07:12 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #307 of 773

Ronald Helfrich 11/8/00 7:07am

Once again. They were not all not going to vote, if Nader didn't run.

Here's what Florida looks like, right now:
George W. Bush (R) 2,909,199 49 Al Gore (D) 2,907,544 49 Ralph Nader (Green) 96,896 2 Pat Buchanan (Ref.) 20,294 0 Harry Browne (Lib.) 18,894 0 James Harris (SWP) 10,477 0 Howard Phillips (CST) 4,282 0 John Hagelin (NLP) 2,275 0 Monica Moorehead (WW) 1,837 0 David McReynolds (Soc.) 621

Are you really telling me that those 96,896 Nader voters, wouldn't have contributed at least 1,655 votes to put Gore over the top? We're talking less than 2% of the Nader Florida voters.

Ralph Nader has handed Bush the presidency, and has deprived progressives an active voice in governing. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ronald Helfrich - 07:30 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #308 of 773

1. Yes. That is probable (as analysts have noted).

2. bushleague and gorewhore aren't that different. granted gorewhore wanted to spend millions more on defence than the bushleague ( difference , merci m. derrida) but both support the drug war which has done more to undermine civil liberties in the US than virtually anything else (of course, we should remember that it was a democrat who institutionalised the police state in the us along with the "red scare"--wooodrow wilson, of course).

3. can i play the blame game too...buchanan votes??? libertarian votes??? constitution party votes??? evil godless commie pinko hagelin votes??? BLAME IT ON CAIN...CAUSE WE NEED SOMEBODY TO BURN. 
(BOOKMARK)

Augie - 07:39 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #309 of 773

2. bushleague and gorewhore aren't that different. granted gorewhore wanted to spend millions more on defence than the bushleague ( difference , merci m. derrida) but both support the drug war which has done more to undermine civil liberties in the US than virtually anything else (of course, we should remember that it was a democrat who instituted the police state in the us along with the "red scare"--wooodrow wilson, of course).

However, Bush will be worse in the drug war, if his record in Texas is any indication. We'll probably have a supreme court, that looks more like Scalia and Thomas, where the fourth and fifth amendments are tossed out the window on some tenious constructionist theory.

Defense spending would have risen under either candidate, with Gore talking about more. However, if you will recall that when Cheny ran the DOD, he allowed criminal fraud to occur in defense procurement. I wouldn't see Al Gore doing that.

So getting back to your premise, that there's no difference. That's just plain stupid. Progressives will no longer have any voice, on environmental concerns, equal opportunity, or virtually any other decision.

We can go issue by issue, and any reasonable person can say that Clinton/Gore supported many more progressive causes than did Reagan/Bush. You're uncompromising principled stand has left you without any opportunity to constructively effect change.

Thank you Ralph Nader for diminishing any power to the progressives. Ralph Nader handed power to the NRA, CC, RTL, and every other right wing fringe element, while relegating the green party to the efficacy status of the White Socialist Workers Party. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
courtney - 07:47 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #310 of 773
Web site found. Waiting for reply.

Um, does anybody else remember the Bushites confidently declaring very early this a.m. that they would carry FL by ~2500 votes? How did they know this with such accuracy? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Skeletor - 08:51 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #311 of 773
"It's official, we've gone through the looking glass." TT poster

Finally, do any of you think that in a close election the electoral college serves to give smaller states greater power in the electoral system?

I don't see why states should have any say in a nationwide election. The small states already get get way more than their share of representation in the Senate. The electoral college is a travesty and everyone knows it, but as long as one side or the other can see an advantage in keeping it, it will never be repealed. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jennifer Kelly - 02:45 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #312 of 773
FIGHT BACK: www.MediaWhoresOnline.com

Since it might be Bush who won the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote, the only consequence is that he's regarded as even less legitimate than otherwise. 
(BOOKMARK)

Dean Falcione - 02:56 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #313 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

To save our Republic, I'm beginning to advocate having Big Al come out and say (assuming the recount shows Bush still ahead),

"For the sake of the nation that I love and have served for 24 years, I am not going to issue a legal challenge to this election. Congratulations to President-Elect Bush."

The Dems would sweep the congress in 2002 and Big Al's popularity rating would be sky-high for 2004 and he could then win with a clear mandate.

Americans value fairness above all else. The "Gore Won!" bumber stickers would be all over the place around this country.

Gore's stature would grow exponentially over the next four years.

GWB would become a pariah and be considered an illegitimate President. The press would turn HARD against him. Trust me.

By giving in and letting the GOP have the White House now, we could finally lock them out of political leadership for decades.

Something to think about.

If Gore mounted a legal challenge and won, he would still lose. The "Al Gore will do anything to get elected" theme would never go away. He would most assuredly be a one-term President. And we would actually empower GW Bush by making him a sympathetic figure.

Plus...Al would have averted a civil war. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Antonia Guzman - 07:50 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #314 of 773

Let the voters in Florida, who were confused by the ballots, vote again. What could it hurt. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 11:07 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #315 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

But, but, Antonia, for the third time ('92, '96. 00) in a row we might screw up and elect The Wrong Man again. Remember, that while this is technically a democracy, you do not have the right to be wrong.

We had to go into Chile after Allende won in '70, because they elected The Wrong Man.

Voting is an awesome responsibility, and not everyone can be trusted to execute it correctly. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Luke Melia - 01:18 pm PST - Nov 11, 2000  - #316 of 773

Al Gore prevailed in the nation's popular vote. He is undeniably the choice of the people. However, for political reasons whose politics have long ceased to matter, we do not currently choose presidents popular vote, but by electoral vote.

With the mandate of the people's will behind us, we should count and recount and do what it takes to determine the legal, electoral winner of the election. We should not compromise our democratic process to the political posturing of either candidate. We should not yield to the pressure of the media for a right-now, prime-time, unofficial-AP-numbers decision. We should not bow to the illusion that the world's opinion of our nation matters more than the opinion of our democracy's citizens.

Morally, Al Gore was the people's choice. Legally, it may be George W. Bush who is deigned president. Right now, though, Mr. Bush must do the honorable thing: refrain from pandering to the media and his supporters with talk of transition or filing of federal lawsuits. He should step back and let the votes be counted and process work.

It's a shame that we may have a conflict between the moral presidential election and the legal one. Whichever candidate ends up in office, they had better take steps with the Congress and the States to make sure that this is the last national election that makes such a mockery of our democracy. 
(BOOKMARK)

Corey Lamont - 03:40 pm PST - Nov 11, 2000  - #317 of 773
AKA: the man with no tagline

There was a front page article in my local newspaper on the Electoral College. They were pointing out that in many states, electors are not bound to follow the popular vote. In many others, there is only a $1000 fine - pocket cash compared to what could be offered as inducement to vote a certain way. And the electoral votes of seven states are cast via secret ballot.

The paper also pointed out that since 1972, there have been four cases of electors bucking the PV in their state(s).

I think it's pretty clear that the battle for POTUS is about to move to new ground - the votes of the electors. Right now it looks like the winner of the EV total will have to swing a mid-sized state (11+ EV) to his side - not impossible. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SBK - 10:55 pm PST - Nov 11, 2000  - #318 of 773

I can only hope that the debacle of the 2000 election will force the modernization of what passes for democracy in this country. In The Talk of the Town section of the Nov. 13 issue of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg presents a cogent argument for the "instant-runoff voting" system. In this system, voters rank their preferences and if there is no majority winner, the alternative choices are redistributed until there is a majority winner. This system allows citizens to express their minority (i.e. third party) preferences without the risk of benefiting the least desirable candidate. Not only might this system encourage more folks to vote, it would ensure that the guy in charge had "at least the grudging support of a majority." Read the article. It is brief and persuasive. Then write your congressional rep. The system needs to be changed. Let's make sure it's changed for the better. sbk 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 04:20 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #319 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I am not sure there is a problem here, at least, not if you are interested in democracy, as opposed to expediency.

The electoral college is doing the job for which it was intended. It is localising the recounts to a few states: Florida, New Mexico, Wisconson, Iowa and Oregon. Oregon's problems are self inflicted, as are the problems in Florida. Why so? Because the problem is not with the system, but the system of presenting and counting. Balloting machines are the best cheap machines that can be come up with. They are generally accurate to one part in 500 or so, and generally this level of accuracy is sufficent. In most elections even if all the disputed votes where pushed in one direction, it would not change the outcome of the election.

In this case it does. The vote was the action, the count is the measurement. They are two different things, and the Bush camp is expressly trying to confuse the issue.

There is a process in place for resolving contending issues and contending sides, and there are laws which provide for more sensitive and nuanced judgements in these cases. If this process is allowed to play out, then there will be final winners in each of the contested states, and a final winner in the general election.

The deeper problem is that the current system - which consists of constitution, law and custom, is meant for coalition parties - parties which are unified around the desire to win the election and govern - rather than ideological factions. We elect leaders for fixed terms, and hence it is better that this be so.

Why? Because with a fixed term, the fear that an ideologically pure party would create would almos certainly be sufficent to cause violence at the transfer of power - too much is at stake. In a parlimentary system parties are purer ideologically, but can fall from power at any time for almost any reason. Parlimentary governments have fallen because of an untimely death, a gasoline tax or provisional regulations.

The current system favors the most committed plurality - in this case quite possibly Bush - rather than the least committed majority, which is what IRV does.

(con't) 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 04:23 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #320 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

This is not a neutral change, and ISV would have shifted the last 3 elections - Bush would have won in 1992, Gore would be the clear winner this time. It would also have shifted the results in 1960, it might have done so in 1948. It would have done so in 1912.

It is not a small matter to enact a change which would, if in place, have significantly altered history. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elaine Supkis - 05:05 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #321 of 773
Thrice I was struck by lightning while in a house. This is totally improbable and statistically incredible. Next: the impossible

HISTORY LESSON FOR TODAY:

Previous posters here have fantasized about Gore being "nice" and stepping aside so the loser, Bush, can win and thus prevent difficulties.

THEY SAID THIS BEFORE!

Lincoln's election was contested and the Dems in the South decided it wasn't legit. Lincoln was warned that his taking office would SPLIT THE NATION and that he should not take it but COMPROMISE and let Douglas take office. Douglas assured Lincoln that he would do something about slavery (ha).

Lincoln WON. He took office anyway, for he said this is what the Constitution says we have to do---hold elections and then abide by the results.

The bitter result was a long civil war and many many people died.

IT HAD TO HAPPEN. We had no choice. Doubt me? Read the Gettyburgh Address! It is ALL THERE.

Our nation is preserved by fighting for priciples and by defending democracy. The Goddess of Democracy was run over by tanks and the students gunned down in Tiannanmin Square.

She stands in a pool of blood, Goddess Democracy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chad Brick - 08:24 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #322 of 773
The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. - Josef Stalin

Antonia Guzman - 07:50 pm PDT - Nov 8, 2000 - #314 of 321

Let the voters in Florida, who were confused by the ballots, vote again. What could it hurt.

Chad 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amy Joubert - 08:53 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #323 of 773
tagline in progress

<delurking>

I've now heard this argument many times and I don't buy it. Why would Nader voters change their vote? It's not like they ever thought their candidate had any chance of winning, or even much of a prayer of crossing the 5% threshold. They heard endless warnings that their vote might swing the election to Bush, but they were unfazed. In fact, many of them were positively gleeful about the possibility. So what's any different now?

I'm not disputing the principle that the circumstances of Election Day cannot be replicated. But I bet most of the changed votes would be from people who originally supported Bush who are disgusted with W.'s recent conduct. 
(BOOKMARK)

Sean Francis - 09:04 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #324 of 773
2004 Restore Our Democracy

All this discussion about revoting indicates why we need to have runoff elections or at least a Bordo counting method (although that may be far too confusing for the voters).

No President should take the job of Chief Executive without a clear majority of the voters supporting him. That means 50.1% not 47%, 48% etc. So the entire country should have a runoff with Bush, Nader, and Gore and we'll see who wins. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sean Francis - 09:07 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #325 of 773
2004 Restore Our Democracy

I don't think a revote should be done. It is a shame, especially since the guy I gave money too would end up losing, but it sets a bad precedent.

Overall, I think both these bastards shouldn't be President based on their actions. I hope the election does get tossed to the House of Representatives and maybe, just maybe, The Best Person for the Job will be elected (not likely, seeing as the House is filled with ultra-partisans, but it is better than this spitefilled venom fest we have now.) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 09:49 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #326 of 773

On the other hand, not RECOUNTING votes because it will take too long (Please god, may Cokie Roberts eat a bad eclair or something?) is just ridiculous. And the NYT could tone it the fuck down a bit. This morning they were blathering about how the "beleagured" nation was "in a war zone." I'm sorry, but I do believe the grocery store is still fully stocked with batteries, candles and bottled water. I for one haven't felt the need to sew diamonds in the lining of my coat or update my passport YET. So some people need to take a chill pill, please! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:00 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #327 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

The real issue on the recount is fairness.

Have you been reading the descriptions of how they recount?

Pregnant ballots vs. dimpled ballots?

Have you thought how easy it is for a bit of chad to get brushed by a finger during the process to change a vote?

How can we trust the results of this recount?

Machines have one stellar virtue.

They aren't partisan. Their errors will be consistent and will not favor one candidate over another.

I have no problem with more accurate machines.

Hand recounts seem more likely to introduce biases based on the desires of the recounters than to achieve greater accuracy.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

Pierre Escutcheon - 02:14 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #328 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

Machines have one stellar virtue.

They aren't partisan. Their errors will be consistent and will not favor one candidate over another.

In the Republican counties, they had better technology that didn't disenfranchise voters.

This means that about 1% (in all probability) of votes were not counted in the heavily Demo counties, while in the heavily Republican counties, (almost) every vote was counted.

Humans may not be perfect, but they can get a more complete count than the machines did, especially on the punch card ballots. There are safeguards against a biased count, namely poll watchers from each party, and strict rules. It is an open, fair, and democratic (small d) process. Only a despot would oppose it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:35 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #329 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

However, the punch card machines produce a very significant undercount compared to the mark-sense type. In the heavily Demo counties where the vote is disputed, the punch card type was predominantly used.

Humans may not be perfect, but they can get a more complete count than the machines did, especially on the punch card ballots.

There are safeguards against a biased count, namely poll watchers from each party, and strict rules.

The real problem here is that human eyes aren't exact instruments.

For example, if you hand a group of human beings 10,000 lines that are randomly drawn to be within one millimeter of 2 cm long and then asked the humans to divide them into piles of larger than 2 cm and smaller, how accurate would they be?

Now imagine that a national election depends on their count.

Manual recounting is clearly not the way to go.

It is an open, fair, and democratic (small d) process. Only a despot would oppose it.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 02:41 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #330 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Xiang baby -- I thought you repubs advocated the rule of law:

Well because of fraud/negligence problems with SPECIFICALLY WITH PUNCHCARD machines in the past, Florida law lets a human count be the last resort when there is a doubt.

Bush, in seeking an injuction against the hand count has no shadow of Florida law on his side. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 02:43 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #331 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

More complete I believe, but more accurate?

P.S., wherever the blame lies for saddling the voters in certain counties with inferior machinery, that should not negate a significant portion of their votes if a better method of counting is available. 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 02:46 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #332 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Gar Lipow 11/12/00 2:41pm

Xiang baby -- I thought you repubs advocated the rule of law:

Well because of fraud/negligence problems with SPECIFICALLY WITH PUNCHCARD machines in the past, Florida law lets a human count be the last resort when there is a doubt.

Bush, in seeking an injuction against the hand count has no shadow of Florida law on his side.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:53 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #333 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Gar Lipow 11/12/00 2:41pm

X: More complete I believe, but more accurate?

P: Yes, more complete and more accurate.

P: But if you have a problem with that, maybe a statistical method would work better. Assign the undercounted votes in the same proportion as the other votes. Same result.

And which votes do we do that for? All that were rejected by the machines? The over votes? The illegible write ins?

And do we then apply that in Iowa and Wisconsin and perhaps New Mexico and Oregon?

What about to any votes in Florida's panhandle that weren't counted due to poorly filled out ballots?

What we're approaching here is a system where we keep counting by different methods until we reach a count that people are happy with.

I think the key is to have standards in which any imperfections are pretty clearly not tied to the partisan leaning of election officials and which produces a consistent result.

If it doesn't match what some voters actually wanted, that's something we need to live with because there is a smooth continuum between minor mistakes where we can all see what the voter wanted and total stupidity where no one can see. As soon as we allow human judgement into the counting process we open the door to partisanship in the counting. And that's not acceptable.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 02:59 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #334 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

And what proportion do we use? Florida's statewide count?

Hand counting is provided for under Florida law, so I'm not sure why you're against it, unless you just want to win at any cost, the will of the people and the rule of law be damned. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 05:44 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #335 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Well, Pierre, the problem is that hand counting can produce any result you want it to.

Even if you judge Bush and Gore votes equally, you can decide how many new votes you get by altering your criteria. If you just recount Gore strongholds that changes the result.

The key to a fair election is having standards set before the vote using machines that aren't altered afterwards.

Using people practically guarantees manipulation.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

Sean Francis - 06:11 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #336 of 773
2004 Restore Our Democracy

All avenues of Florida law need to be followed before this election is declared. We can bitch and moan about the accuracy of these avenues but it is the State law.

Bush, trying to circumvent this process in the name of expediency is just wrong. Plain and simple wrong. Trying to mount a PR campaign to sway the public opinion and claim the Democrats are just sore losers is plain evil.

Let Florida law and Floridian courts follow due process. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 06:23 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #337 of 773

There is no point to declaring a President before the handcounts are complete. Isn't every ballot looked at by Republicans AND Democrats? And if a finger dislodges a piece of CHAD, that shouldn't be a problem. Chad is the piece of paper that remains sometimes when a hole is punched, which means that THAT is the hole that has been punched. A finger would not be able to poke a hole that is similar to the kind of chad that could only be found by poking the circle out on voting day with a special instrument. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Katya Romega - 06:40 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #338 of 773

I'm curious, I haven't heard the Gore campaign mention the national popular vote much anymore...they seem to be concentrating on the popular vote in Florida, are they worried that Bush will win the popular vote now? I've heard so many different numbers lately..particularly in terms of the number of absentee votes still uncounted in California.
Does anyone have any updated numbers here? Unfortunately those election officials in Palm Beach County seem rather dim...I'm getting really worried. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brad Smith - 07:09 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #339 of 773
I earned my honorable discharge

Mr. Bush and his supporters should shut up and let the state of Florida and the counties follow their own laws...

Mr. Baker is not the Pope, and Mr. Bush sure as hell ain't Napoleon I...ain't nobody crowning themsleves emperor in this country.

If the Bush campaign wants re-counts in other counties, pursue them...in other states? Fine. Go for it.

But if the only way the governor can win is by dis-enfranchising the people, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

What are they afraid of? Being indicted en masse by the Florida Grand Jury?

If the governor is so SURE he has won legitimately, why hasn't he resigned from office in Texas? Surely the question of "who is in charge" should resonate as much in Austin as in Washington?

So here's the question for all the Republicans out there who are so confident their man has won - why hasn't he resigned the governorship? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:11 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #340 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Because the president is not officially elected, by the electors, until December 18. 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 07:16 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #341 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

SheRa 11/12/00 6:23pm

And if a finger dislodges a piece of CHAD, that shouldn't be a problem. Chad is the piece of paper that remains sometimes when a hole is punched, which means that THAT is the hole that has been punched.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 07:17 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #342 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

SheRa 11/12/00 6:23pm

And if a finger dislodges a piece of CHAD, that shouldn't be a problem. Chad is the piece of paper that remains sometimes when a hole is punched, which means that THAT is the hole that has been punched.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 08:11 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #343 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Hey, check this out.... http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/friday/news_16.html

In a small side-street office of this rural North Florida town, four county officials -- all of them Democrats -- spent seven hours Wednesday examining every pencil mark on 2,073 ballots that had been rejected by Gadsden County's ballot scanning machine to try to reconstruct what the voters meant.

But rather than reject these ballots outright -- as they did in Palm Beach County and many other counties that use punch ballots -- the practice of the Gadsden County canvassing board is to look at each questionable ballot to try to determine the intent of each voter.

Some voters colored in the circle for one candidate, crossed it out and then filled in a circle for another. Others filled in the circle for a candidate, then wrote the name of the same candidate in the write-in space, as if for emphasis.

'`The only ones we reconstructed were the ones we could tell the intent of the voter," explained Sterling Watson, a county commissioner and member of the canvassing board.

This county, the most Democratic in the state, cast 16,812 votes in the presidential race, 66 percent of them for Vice President Al Gore.

These guys were using Optimark ballots like the ones in West Florida in the Republican counties. Should all of those counties get recounted to the same standard as Gadsen's?

Why or why not?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 05:02 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #344 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Should all of those counties get recounted to the same standard as Gadsen's?

Xiang - 05:05 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #345 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Ouch.

But then doesn't that standard apply to Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Hampshire, and New Mexico?

When does this end?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arden Forest - 06:55 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #346 of 773
Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally complete. At last it has a global village idiot. --John O'Farrell, The Guardian, 1/20/01

I think every vote in every questionable state should be recounted until December 18th. Then let the electors do their thing. What does it matter if we remain in "limbo" for another month? Bill is in his Whitehouse, and will be until January 20. At this point, whoever succeeds him will make us all nostalgic for the Clinton Years, so I am currently suspecting Bill as the engineer of this whole mess.

Hmm, maybe I should change my tagline. Well, not yet . . . 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 07:36 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #347 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

No President should take the job of Chief Executive without a clear majority of the voters supporting him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Fox - 08:09 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #348 of 773
Stalking: A merit badge in the '50s, a felony in the '00s.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm loving this election. Half the country had no clue how the electoral system worked. I refer you to Federalist paper #68. Here's a great quote from Alexander Hamilton on one of the electoral college's purposes:

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

Hah! Fooled you, didn't we, Alex!

So, say Bush appears to win the election by one electoral vote. The, when the electors meet in the several states, two electors in a state that voted for Bush decide to vote for Gore. Gore becomes POTUS. Bush challenges, and the Supremes tell him, "Sorry, Bubba, read the Constitution." You think we've got a crisis now? Hell, they could wrap themselves in the flag: "We just wanted to make sure that an antiquated remnant from this country's beginnings didn't circumvent the popular vote."

Again from Federalist Paper #68:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

These guys (Women as electors? Hardly....) were supposed to deliberate among themselves, on a state by state basis, and vote their consciences. There was no thought of their being committed to follow the state's popular vote. In fact, I expect a hue and cry to come up in each state to pass a law committing the electors from each state to that state's popular vote. Some already have such a law. So, the electors meet, two vote their conscience, and are challenged by the state. The electors go to the Supremes and say, "This state law is unconstitutional." I wonder what the Supremes would say to that. The Federalist Papers have been quoted in court before, successfully, as a proper and legal guide to interpretation of the Constitution. 
(BOOKMARK)

Beth Meacham - 08:59 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #349 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

Every vote in every precinct in every state should be counted. Punch card systems are notoriously quirky -- that's why every state has provisions for a hand count in the case of a close or disputed election. They were put into service to make vote counting easier and faster --not because they are more accurate.

If a hand count the Florida ballot shows that Bush is the winner, I can safely promise that Democrats will concede. If the Bush campaign is so sure they won, why are they trying to stop the most accurate way of counting the votes?

And if the overseas ballots, when counted, give the victory to Al Gore, will the republicans concede with grace? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Telamon - 01:00 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #350 of 773
The apple must be thrown, to grow another tree.

Whoops -- there goes Lincoln, who received less that 40% of the popular vote in a four-man race in 1860.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 01:30 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #351 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

But Beth,

When humans count and the decisions are borderline their own desires get in the way.

And it so happens that the people running the current hand count are Democrats.

That's a great way to get a fair count, isn't it?

Machines are the way to go - their mistakes are equal opportunity and don't favor either side.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arden Forest - 01:41 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #352 of 773
Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally complete. At last it has a global village idiot. --John O'Farrell, The Guardian, 1/20/01

I don't see how one side is favored over the other in counts where there is so much supervision by both parties over every ballot counted. Surely it leads to a more accurate rather than less accurate tally. And that's what we all want, isn't it Xiang? An accurate tally of the votes that were cast on Election day? But you are busy spouting the official Republican line here so I am sure you cannot agree to what is eminently fair and reasonable. (And, btw, supported by a vast majority of the public. Tell that to your bosses before they lose what little credibility they have left). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:09 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #353 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Arden,

They vote on each ballot.

And in all those counties the people doing the voting are majority Democrat.

Mind telling me how you think that produces an accurate count?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 02:11 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #354 of 773
Class Maledictorian