NationStates Jolt Archive

What if, come November 3, we again have a situation where one candidate has won the popular vote, while another has won--beyond question--the electoral vote? Before you answer--the popular vote winner is George W. Bush, while the Electoral vote winner is John Kerry.

Will there be as many Republicans screaming "get over it?" Will the Republicans in power try to find a way to either keep Bush in power or delegitimize a Kerry presidency? Remember--I'm not talking about a disputed state like Florida in 2000. I'm talking about a straight up electoral win, no questions, but a popular vote loss.

Whose heads will explode first?

Mine Will, as I scream "I demand a third party candidate!!!!"

Don't misunderestimate Republicans. They follow the Constitution just like everybody else.

I wouldn't like it, but I would get over it. I would not disgrace my countries sytem of government over it.

That may actually be a positive outcome in a way, having had 4 years of a republican administration when a democrat got the popular vote; 4 years of a democrat administration when a republican got the popular vote may actually galvanise the good people of America into supporting some form of electoral college reform that will prevent the situation from reoccuring.

Having said that, if it happens - partisan assholes from both sides will continue to be partisan assholes.

Disclaimer- I am British and none of this is any of my business.

they wont LIKE it but the republicans wont contest it. its the way our government works
but it might finally spur on a move to abolish the electoral college

Don't get me wrong--I'll take whatever kind of win I can get, as long as when Jan. 20, 2005 rolls around, we have a President Kerry instead of President Bush in the White House, but I do worry about this somewhat. I remember late October 2000, when Limbaugh and all his little wannabees were talking up the possibility of a Bush popular win and a Gore electoral win and what recourse they would have for an illegitimate presidency, etc., and I wonder what would happen if the tables were turned on them this time.

I mean, it's not like these people have anything remotely resembling shame. (I'm not talking about rank and file Republicans--I'm talking about the wingnuts in talk radio and in power.)

What if, come November 3, we again have a situation where one candidate has won the popular vote, while another has won--beyond question--the electoral vote? Before you answer--the popular vote winner is George W. Bush, while the Electoral vote winner is John Kerry.

Will there be as many Republicans screaming "get over it?" Will the Republicans in power try to find a way to either keep Bush in power or delegitimize a Kerry presidency? Remember--I'm not talking about a disputed state like Florida in 2000. I'm talking about a straight up electoral win, no questions, but a popular vote loss.

Whose heads will explode first?
I would laugh. Very hard.

I think the thing that polls are unable to account for are the number of 1st time voters who are likely to vote for Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry will win both the electoral college and the popular vote. You have my word on it.

Mine would. I would try to supress my laughter, and the pressure would make it explode.

I think the thing that polls are unable to account for are the number of 1st time voters who are likely to vote for Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry will win both the electoral college and the popular vote. You have my word on it.
I think so too, but that doesn't make for much of a hypothetical, now does it? :D

Funny--it's still early in the polling process, but so far, no one seems to think that the Democrats will suffer head explosions from that outcome. Is it that we'll feel revenged for 2000 and that will override our beliefs that the electoral college is outmoded and should be done away with (a belief I do not share, mind you)? :D

Bee-humpity

Vote in the poll!!!! :D

Damn--hoped the smiley would be big too.

I would say none of them. The electoral college can vote any way it wants to... their votes are purely based on popular vote.

I would say none of them. The electoral college can vote any way it wants to... their votes are purely based on popular vote.
Hold on--either the electoral college can vote however it wishes, or it's based on the popular votes of the individual states, but not both. You're contradicting yourself.

I happen to know how it works--just pointing out the problem with your post.

Don't get me wrong--I'll take whatever kind of win I can get, as long as when Jan. 20, 2005 rolls around, we have a President Kerry instead of President Bush in the White House, but I do worry about this somewhat. I remember late October 2000, when Limbaugh and all his little wannabees were talking up the possibility of a Bush popular win and a Gore electoral win and what recourse they would have for an illegitimate presidency, etc...


From my recollections, the reason it first came up was when the Gore campaign started sending letters to the media to plant seeds of support in case this scenario came up. The Repubs never envisioned the outcome that happened.

I dont believe that anybodies head would explode. I personally would grumble, but move on.

I might do what I could to protect myself from the govt's outreaching hand, but life would go on.

Don't misunderestimate Republicans. They follow the Constitution just like everybody else.

HAHAHA! That's the funniest thing I've heard all night!

Having said that, if it happens - partisan assholes from both sides will continue to be partisan assholes.

Disclaimer- I am British and none of this is any of my business.
Lol you got it right though :) people who don’t think things over piss me off … from both sides :) well maybe I should say from all sides (life is not a 2 party system)

HAHAHA! That's the funniest thing I've heard all night!
Great way to troll
Prepare for meaningless argument to ensue

From my recollections, the reason it first came up was when the Gore campaign started sending letters to the media to plant seeds of support in case this scenario came up. The Repubs never envisioned the outcome that happened.
I knew I was right on this. Here's an example. (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/111000a.html)
In the days before the Nov. 7 election, Republicans feared that Vice President Al Gore might win the Electoral College while Texas Gov. George W. Bush could win the national popular vote.

The expectation then was that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader might siphon off millions of votes from Gore nationwide, but not enough in key states to keep them out of Gore's column.

That could allow Gore to amass the 270 electoral votes needed for winning the presidency while blocking a Gore plurality in the popular vote.

To stop Gore under those circumstances, advisers to the Bush campaign weighed the possibility of challenging the legitimacy of a popular-vote loser gaining the White House.

"The one thing we don't do is roll over -- we fight," said a Bush aide, according to an article by Michael Kramer in the New York Daily News on Nov. 1, a week before the election.

The article reported that "the core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course. 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," said 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."

The Bush strategy to challenge the Electoral College went even further. "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," the article said.

"You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asked a Bush adviser.

The Bush strategy also would target the members of the Electoral College, the 538 electors who are picked by the campaigns and state party organizations to go to Washington for what is normally a ceremonial function. Many of the electors are not legally bound to a specific candidate.

Another article describing the Republican thinking appeared in The Boston Herald on Nov. 3. It also quoted Republican sources outlining plans to rally public sentiment against Gore’s election if he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote.

“The Bush camp, sources said, would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people’s will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic,” said the article by Andrew Miga.

“One informal Bush adviser, who declined to be named, predicted Republicans would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Bush won the popular vote but was denied the presidency,” the article said.

The article quoted the Bush adviser as saying: “That’s what America is all about, isn’t it. I’m sure we would make a strong case.”

So now my question is--seeing as how they benefited from this scenario in 2000, what happens if the tables are turned this time? Do they meekly go away? Or do they put the above-described plan into action? My bet is on the second, because these guys are literally shameless.

That would never happen. I don't think Kerry could possibly win an electoral vote without the popular vote. He's just too boring. And I think there are going to be a whole lot of people who don't normally vote, pissed off at Bush and voting Democrat this year.

Rush, of course.

Then again, his head explodes at pretty much a daily basis...

As long as the end result, does not end up with Bush in the White House...


Its cool with me.

bump

More votes! :D

I think the Republicans as a whole would get over it, the neo-Cons would fight tooth and claw to take the White House.

The sad thing is, I don't think that Kerry would have the stomach to fight.

PS. Voted Rush

Guess I ought to say that I voted for Rush too. I don't think he'd have any real trouble teasing out an excuse as to why the Electoral College was invalid this time around when it was valid in 2000--after all, his brain has allowed him to be a pill freak while simultaneously condemning drug addiction, so dealing with contradiction is nothing new--but there comes a point where even a brain as liberally lubricated with oxy as Rush's has to deal with the reality of a President Kerry, and that's what wll tip him over the edge. :D

they wont LIKE it but the republicans wont contest it. its the way our government works
but it might finally spur on a move to abolish the electoral college

Getting rid of the electorial college would be a very bad thing.

1) Imagine how many recounts there would be. In a close election, both canditates would be trying to get recounts in districts that favoured them so they could maybe pick up some more votes.

2) Imagine the corruption that would take place in districts where one party or the other had a strong political machine(ballot stuffing etc).

3) The president would have incentive to sign any legislation that benefitted poorly populated states.

4) all the big cities would get all the legislation/pork they wanted.

I'm still wondering why there's still intelligent people living in the States. You know you can move, don't you?

Hold on--either the electoral college can vote however it wishes, or it's based on the popular votes of the individual states, but not both. You're contradicting yourself.

I happen to know how it works--just pointing out the problem with your post.

I see what you mean. What I meant was that the electoral college is encouraged to vote the way the populace votes, HOWEVER they do not have to do so.

I see what you mean. What I meant was that the electoral college is encouraged to vote the way the populace votes, HOWEVER they do not have to do so.It all depends on the state. I thought all fifty states had protections in place to force electors to vote the way the state did, but I discovered recently that West Virginia doesn't. Anyone have a resource to find out which states have protections and which ones don't?

It all depends on the state. I thought all fifty states had protections in place to force electors to vote the way the state did, but I discovered recently that West Virginia doesn't. Anyone have a resource to find out which states have protections and which ones don't?

Its called voting them out of office next chance ya get, similiar to what happened 2 years after the dems placed the awb in place. They lost 20 seats in congress for that knuckle head move.

I think the thing that polls are unable to account for are the number of 1st time voters who are likely to vote for Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry will win both the electoral college and the popular vote. You have my word on it.

Sure, besides the existence of what is known as the "conservative phenomenon". Polls have shown this generation to have the one of the highest percentages of college-age conservatives. Even the experts are unsure how to explain it, hence the name. So don't count on getting a huge first-time voter percentage.

Its called voting them out of office next chance ya get, similiar to what happened 2 years after the dems placed the awb in place. They lost 20 seats in congress for that knuckle head move.That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about state laws that require electors to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote in the state.

That may actually be a positive outcome in a way, having had 4 years of a republican administration when a democrat got the popular vote; 4 years of a democrat administration when a republican got the popular vote may actually galvanise the good people of America into supporting some form of electoral college reform that will prevent the situation from reoccuring.

Having said that, if it happens - partisan assholes from both sides will continue to be partisan assholes.

Disclaimer- I am British and none of this is any of my business.

I love you.