NationStates Jolt Archive

Assuming that West Virginia goes to Bush in the election, I found this an interesting story:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politics/3843630/detail.html

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- One of West Virginia's five Republican electors is mad about President George W. Bush's economic and foreign policies and says he might not vote for Bush.

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said that based on his research, an elector has "qualified discretion" when it comes to casting a vote.

Still, Robb called it "highly unlikely" that he would cast a vote for Democrat John Kerry. He says he might cast his vote for Vice President Cheney or another Republican instead, meaning the president would lose out on one electoral vote.

Robb's decision could end up having enormous national significance because the presidential election is expected to go down to the wire.

Only 10 electors in history have gone against the votes of their states, including one from West Virginia.

There are cracks in the dam!! :D

Ive heard about this.

Its good news.

Since the electoral predictors have Kerry winning, I'd say theres hope for America.

Even if it goes the way I want it to go, this is not a good thing. The electors have a representative job to do and they should do it. If they cannot in good conscience(sp) then they should step down. The president that it sets is horrible. Not good. I appreaciate that persons beliefs, but can't agree with the action.

EDIT: I thought it was an old story where someone was going to cast a vote for Kerry no matter what, forcing me to turn my common advice on myself:rif. So-I still stand by what I said, but it is interesting to see the traditional party loyalty of the right starting to crumble. Makes me think of the Newt Gingrich period...

Assuming that West Virginia goes to Bush in the election, I found this an interesting story:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politics/3843630/detail.html

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- One of West Virginia's five Republican electors is mad about President George W. Bush's economic and foreign policies and says he might not vote for Bush.

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said that based on his research, an elector has "qualified discretion" when it comes to casting a vote.

Still, Robb called it "highly unlikely" that he would cast a vote for Democrat John Kerry. He says he might cast his vote for Vice President Cheney or another Republican instead, meaning the president would lose out on one electoral vote.

Robb's decision could end up having enormous national significance because the presidential election is expected to go down to the wire.

Only 10 electors in history have gone against the votes of their states, including one from West Virginia.

There are cracks in the dam!! :D


It would be political suicide and it would quickly be corrected. Electors no longer have "qualified discretion". Past instances where an elector voted for the other candidate, a sepperate candidate, or even himself (1984, when Reagan won by a landslide an elector thought it would be funny), they were driven out of the party, soon after out of whatever office they held, and the electoral count corrected appropriately.

Ive heard about this.

Its good news.

Since the electoral predictors have Kerry winning, I'd say theres hope for America.

Which electoral predictions? ;)

This one's extremely (if not absurdly) generous to Kerry...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

And still... :p

See also: Slate and CNN.com...

It would be political suicide and it would quickly be corrected. Electors no longer have "qualified discretion". Past instances where an elector voted for the other candidate, a sepperate candidate, or even himself (1984, when Reagan won by a landslide an elector thought it would be funny), they were driven out of the party, soon after out of whatever office they held, and the electoral count corrected appropriately.
In 2000, a DC elector abstained in protest of the district not having Congressional seats. I don't know if that person was driven out of the party...besides, it wouldn't have changed the election.

And there is no such thing as correcting the electoral count, the votes that are cast stand, unless a lawsuit were brought against it (I believe some states actually force electors to vote based on their state's popular vote...WV obviously does not).

As well, in this election it will most likely not be relevant. The only time it could change anything is if Bush were to have exactly 270 votes otherwise. In this case the election would be thrown to Congress, which would definately re-elect Bush, and probably re-elect Cheney (dependant upon the new Senate, Democrats would need to take 2 seats to elect Edwards...the new Senate is hard to call since at least 8 seats are tossups).

The chance however of Bush getting exactly 270 votes however, are extremely low. The way the battleground states have turned out, there would have to be miracles (on either side) for Bush to achieve exactly 270 votes.

So if anything, an electoral voter witholding a vote is just making a statement, it has no real effect this year.

Which electoral predictions? ;)

This one's extremely (if not absurdly) generous to Kerry...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

And still... :p

See also: Slate and CNN.com...
The numbers do not lie: www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html (http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html)

You find it aburdly generous to Kerry because you believe Bush holds a huge lead, when in fact the election is a tossup.

See also: www.electionprojection.com (http://www.electionprojection.com) , at the moment their results are nearly identical to electoral-vote.com...and this is the one run by a hardcore Republican. :p


EDIT: Ah, from the updates at electionprojection: "As a result, Kerry is now in the lead here at Election Projection, 274-264."

So...where is your "absurdly generous to Kerry" again? If you have a electoral follower that you think is more accurate, please post it.

The numbers do not lie: www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html (http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html)

You find it aburdly generous to Kerry because you believe Bush holds a huge lead, when in fact the election is a tossup.

See also: www.electionprojection.com (http://www.electionprojection.com) , at the moment their results are nearly identical to electoral-vote.com...and this is the one run by a hardcore Republican. :p

What exactly will the past polls mean on Nov. 3rd, I wonder? The polls in mid-September that had Bush up 120 EV's don't mean much today, just as the polls that had Kerry with a generous lead last week don't matter much now. Who knows, maybe someone will 'discover' another Bush DUI in the last three days like they did in 2000.. and Kerry will cruise right in like Al Gore.. ;)

What exactly will the past polls mean on Nov. 3rd, I wonder? The polls in mid-September that had Bush up 120 EV's don't mean much today, just as the polls that had Kerry with a generous lead last week don't matter much now. Who knows, maybe someone will 'discover' another Bush DUI in the last three days like they did in 2000.. and Kerry will cruise right in like Al Gore.. ;)
Of course. I was just responding to your claim that electoral-vote.com is somehow biased towards Kerry, when in fact it runs on a formula involving all the polls, even the biased ones like Zogby (Democrat) and Strategic Vision (Republican), the owner of the site doesn't pick and choose which polls to use and which ones to discard. Same goes for electionprojection.com.

You can argue that polls in general are biased towards Kerry...

The numbers do not lie: www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html (http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html)

You find it aburdly generous to Kerry because you believe Bush holds a huge lead, when in fact the election is a tossup.

See also: www.electionprojection.com (http://www.electionprojection.com) , at the moment their results are nearly identical to electoral-vote.com...and this is the one run by a hardcore Republican. :p


EDIT: Ah, from the updates at electionprojection: "As a result, Kerry is now in the lead here at Election Projection, 274-264."

So...where is your "absurdly generous to Kerry" again? If you have a electoral follower that you think is more accurate, please post it.

And yet www.realclearpolitics.com has Bush up 234 to 210 with 94 votes in the toss up column. I find this a tad more accurate over electoral-vote.com which has Bush up 271 to 257.

And yet www.realclearpolitics.com has Bush up 234 to 210 with 94 votes in the toss up column. I find this a tad more accurate over electoral-vote.com which has Bush up 271 to 257.
Well, realclearpolitics puts Michigan in tossup, and Iowa in Leaning Bush, which is simply rediculous. Polls routinely come out in Iowa showing Bush, then Kerry leading by small percentages. Polls come out in Michigan showing Kerry leading by small, then huge percentages. As well, Minnesota is an easy Kerry state, just check the poll listing (http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html) . New Mexico and New Hampshire also both lean Kerry by sizable margins.

Well, realclearpolitics puts Michigan in tossup, and Iowa in Leaning Bush, which is simply rediculous. Polls routinely come out in Iowa showing Bush, then Kerry leading by small percentages. Polls come out in Michigan showing Kerry leading by small, then huge percentages. As well, Minnesota is an easy Kerry state, just check the poll listing (http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html) . New Mexico and New Hampshire also both lean Kerry by sizable margins.

I find realclearpolitics.com to be more accurate. It has labeled the toss-up states and are accurate with it.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ is another good site for projected election results.