NationStates Jolt Archive

Idea came from here. (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/some_thoughts_on_a_hypothetica.php)

If Barack Obama was to win the popular votes but lose to McCain in the College, like Gore with Bush, what would happen to the USA?

I think, given the partisan and racial tensions that would be ignited, violence of some sort would be ineveitable. Or would Americans take it the same way they did in 2000 - Democrats annoyed, bitter but ultimately inactive?

The question isn't really about either of the two candidates but rather about the state America is in. How would the nation deal with an second undemocratic President?

nothing big would happen and everyone would just shrug their shoulders and move along...

but its not like having a democrat has ever traditionally changed things :confused:

I think it would mor elikely be the other way around with Obama winning the college but not the vote.

I think that democrats would instintly quit complaining about 2000 and Republicans would be quiet because 2000 had been atoned for with 2008. The only way they would go balistic is if the dems were to bring it up later.

well if it came to fighting the republicans have both the NRA and the military on their side. so order would quickly be restored and the Dems would be shipped to Gitmo.

well if it came to fighting the republicans have both the NRA and the military on their side. so order would quickly be restored and the Dems would be shipped to Gitmo.

*Makes clerical mistake, gets ALL politicians sent to Gitmo. Iz happy*

Idea came from here. (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/some_thoughts_on_a_hypothetica.php)

If Barack Obama was to win the popular votes but lose to McCain in the College, like Gore with Bush, what would happen to the USA?

I think, given the partisan and racial tensions that would be ignited, violence of some sort would be ineveitable. Or would Americans take it the same way they did in 2000 - Democrats annoyed, bitter but ultimately inactive?

The question isn't really about either of the two candidates but rather about the state America is in. How would the nation deal with an second undemocratic President?

The President is formally elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote (it's been that way since 1787). The 2000 election was the fourth time someone won the popular vote, but didn't win in the electoral college. Finally, the US isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic.

Personally, I hope there'd ONLY be some grumbling and sour grapes.

Finally, the US isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic.

I think it takes a great deal of knit-picking to say that the current practical idealology that America aims for isn't democracy.

I think it takes a great deal of knit-picking to say that the current practical idealology that America aims for isn't democracy.

Democratic REPUBLIC.

Democratic REPUBLIC.
I think you're confusing republic with representational democracy...

Republic:
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government.

Clearly, every democracy is also a republic.

That would be the most awesome thing ever. Especially if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the election. It would be like a hypocrisy sandwich.

I'd hijack a nuke and set it off in DC.

*FBI and sorts kick down my door and drags me kicking and screaming to Gitmo*

Violent revolution. Yup.

The democrats (at least those who didn't flee the country as promised after '04) will revolt. That is, if George W. Bush (who of course wouldn't have left office if he had lost in '04 and may not leave office in '09) allows John McCain to take the presidency from him in the first place. If McCain insists on becoming president, Bush can simply trot out Osama bin Laden (who he had, of course, been hiding in the basement of the Pentagon since 2001 as a possible 'October Surprise' option, and presumably still has in his custody), bomb Iran (which he is of course planning to do anyway) and declare martial law, stopping either Obama or John McCain in their tracks.

Right? :)

I'd go to Charlotte, try to incite a riot and use the riot as an excuse to steal stuff.

I think it takes a great deal of knit-picking to say that the current practical idealology that America aims for isn't democracy.

It's nit, not knit. /nitpick. :)

I'd hijack a nuke and set it off in DC.

*FBI and sorts kick down my door and drags me kicking and screaming to Gitmo*

Don't set it off in DC, DC votes 90-10 for Dems and it's worth three electoral votes.

Oh, and to op: We'd see a royal FUBAR in the political sphere.

Wouldn't that be something? I would laugh and say Hillary was our choice in the first place. Hillary '12

I think it would mor elikely be the other way around with Obama winning the college but not the vote.

I think that democrats would instintly quit complaining about 2000 and Republicans would be quiet because 2000 had been atoned for with 2008. The only way they would go balistic is if the dems were to bring it up later.

Not gonna happen mate. Obama will pwn McCain.

Not gonna happen mate. Obama will pwn McCain.

Agreed...and I'm a Republican

Not gonna happen mate. Obama will pwn McCain.

Yes, because as we all know, Polls that are done five months before the actual election always stay the same. :rolleyes::p

Clearly, every democracy is also a republic.

Well, that's certainly true.

If you ignore about half the democracies in the world.

Yes, because as we all know, Polls that are done five months before the actual election always stay the same. :rolleyes::p

And if he was saying it based on the polls, you'd have a point, especially since Obama supporters argued the very same to Clinton supporters.

But that's not the argument. The argument is based on the simple fact that McCain lacks the charisma he used to have, he lacks any real support from moderates and independents, he lacks the grassroots organization that Obama has that will force him on the defensive everywhere, Obama is a fantastic campaigner, and so on and so forth.

It's a reasonable assumption.

What a choice. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire......

What a choice. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire. Frying pan. Fire......

Or you could say "Four feet of shit" "Three feet of sheet"......

Clearly, every democracy is also a republic.

Ahem, here are some democracies that are not republics.

Great Britain
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Japan
Sweden
Denmark
Norway
The Netherlands
Belgium
Spain

and some other small countries

Idea came from here. (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/some_thoughts_on_a_hypothetica.php)

If Barack Obama was to win the popular votes but lose to McCain in the College, like Gore with Bush, what would happen to the USA?

I think, given the partisan and racial tensions that would be ignited, violence of some sort would be ineveitable. Or would Americans take it the same way they did in 2000 - Democrats annoyed, bitter but ultimately inactive?

The question isn't really about either of the two candidates but rather about the state America is in. How would the nation deal with an second undemocratic President?

I'de riot, strait up no strings attached riot. Break glass, flip and burn cars, throw mobs of people into police walls...take over cities...then the states...then the country mwahahaha, oh wait back on track ummm so ya that wouldn't fly to well with me.

I think you're confusing republic with representational democracy...

Republic:
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government.

Clearly, every democracy is also a republic.

No, what do you call Norway, the U.K., Denmark, and the Netherlands then?

I'm not at all worried since McCain's victory has already been determined;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

Violent revolution. Yup.

The democrats (at least those who didn't flee the country as promised after '04) will revolt. That is, if George W. Bush (who of course wouldn't have left office if he had lost in '04 and may not leave office in '09) allows John McCain to take the presidency from him in the first place. If McCain insists on becoming president, Bush can simply trot out Osama bin Laden (who he had, of course, been hiding in the basement of the Pentagon since 2001 as a possible 'October Surprise' option, and presumably still has in his custody), bomb Iran (which he is of course planning to do anyway) and declare martial law, stopping either Obama or John McCain in their tracks.

Right? :)

Nah, the crazy side of the Democratic party is a bunch of weenies really. If shit hit the fan they would run. As for general revolts in the US they are far and few between. I don't see it happening.

Ahem, here are some democracies that are not republics.

Great Britain
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Japan
Sweden
Denmark
Norway
The Netherlands
Belgium
Spain

and some other small countries

The UK for example may not be a Republic but I know there is a movement to do just that. As of right now the UK is a Representative Democracy. I would think most of the list is or maybe all of it. As for the Direct Democracy aspect it is used on local levels in the US for the most part and I suspect other areas of the world too.

The UK for example may not be a Republic but I know there is a movement to do just that. As of right now the UK is a Representative Democracy. I would think most of the list is or maybe all of it. As for the Direct Democracy aspect it is used on local levels in the US for the most part and I suspect other areas of the world too.

Technically we (the UK) are a constitutional monarchy. And the republican movement here is weak to the point of non-existance.

The UK for example may not be a Republic but I know there is a movement to do just that.

well yes we all have our crazies

As of right now the UK is a Representative Democracy. I would think most of the list is or maybe all of it.

no its a constitutional Monarchy :confused:

hence all the parliament and houses of Lords etc

well yes we all have our crazies



no its a constitutional Monarchy :confused:

hence all the parliament and houses of Lords etc

I am throwing out the bit of the Monarchy. If you look how the real UKian government is set up it is considered a Representative Democracy and even a Liberal Democracy to boot.

no its a constitutional Monarchy :confused:

hence all the parliament and houses of Lords etc
I don't think the two are mutially exclusive. In law we are a constitutional monarchy, but in practice, a representative democracy and, depending on definition, a republic, as the monarchy has no decision making role in government.

Idea came from here. (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/some_thoughts_on_a_hypothetica.php)

If Barack Obama was to win the popular votes but lose to McCain in the College, like Gore with Bush, what would happen to the USA?

We'd have four more years of the Presidency.

I think, given the partisan and racial tensions that would be ignited, violence of some sort would be ineveitable. Or would Americans take it the same way they did in 2000 - Democrats annoyed, bitter but ultimately inactive?

The bolded

The question isn't really about either of the two candidates but rather about the state America is in. How would the nation deal with an second undemocratic President?

undemocratic President? :headbang:

I think you're confusing republic with representational democracy...

Republic:
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government.

Clearly, every democracy is also a republic.

It's the other way around: Not every democracy is a republic, but every republic is a democracy.

(When it comes to forms of government, there is a difference between democracy and republics, but when it comes to political philosophy, a republic is considered to be a democracy.)

Looks like it's going to be another close election like in 2000 and 2004! And like it or not, it's going to come down to what Ralph Nader is going to do. (or another Independent)

This is how elections should be done:
Instead of ever having runoff elections and Independents never standing a chance and throwing a monkey wrench into the system, we should have some kind of point system. (when there are 3 or more running for the same position)

Let's say in november we have Obama, McCain and Nader on the ballot. As has happened many times before, the Independent takes away votes from the Republicans & Democrats. To get a better idea of what the people want, our vote should be a ratings system.

If you Like Nader the most and McCain the least then you would vote:
Nader-1
Obama-2
McCain-3
Nader would get 3 points, Obama 2 and McCain 1 High score wins. This way the bean counters know more of what the people want!

It's the other way around: Not every democracy is a republic, but every republic is a democracy.

(When it comes to forms of government, there is a difference between democracy and republics, but when it comes to political philosophy, a republic is considered to be a democracy.)

Also not true. The Soviet Union was a republic, but was also clearly not a democracy. As was Nazi Germany and the Roman Republic.

The Republic and democracy are two independent variables that overlap on a Venn diagram.

Some representative democracies are constitutional monarchies, and some direct democracies are stateless societies (thus not republics). And republics can be oligarchies (like Rome or Venice), or they can even be totalitarian states like Nazi Germany.

A newly released CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that if Obama does not select Clinton as his running mate, 22 percent of her supporters would stay home this fall -- and another 17 percent would vote for McCain.

A newly released CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that if Obama does not select Clinton as his running mate, 22 percent of her supporters would stay home this fall -- and another 17 percent would vote for McCain.

Which really shows the level of intelligence on their parts. Look at CH. He has Nadar for 2008. Granted he cannot vote but still...

To many Clinton supporters buy the Clintonite line that it was stolen and believe the bullshit spouted by her and her campaign.

If Barack Obama was to win the popular votes but lose to McCain in the College, like Gore with Bush, what would happen to the USA?
I'd have to listen to democrats whine for another 4 years.
The question isn't really about either of the two candidates but rather about the state America is in. How would the nation deal with an second undemocratic President?
:rolleyes:
You do realize that the popular vote has nothing to do with who should be president, yes?

This is how elections should be done:
Instead of ever having runoff elections and Independents never standing a chance and throwing a monkey wrench into the system, we should have some kind of point system. (when there are 3 or more running for the same position)

Let's say in november we have Obama, McCain and Nader on the ballot. As has happened many times before, the Independent takes away votes from the Republicans & Democrats. To get a better idea of what the people want, our vote should be a ratings system.

If you Like Nader the most and McCain the least then you would vote:
Nader-1
Obama-2
McCain-3
Nader would get 3 points, Obama 2 and McCain 1 High score wins. This way the bean counters know more of what the people want!

well, it allows for some interesting tactical voting, at least. for example, i think that if the constitution party ever got into a position of mattering, they would be way worse than the repubs by all standards. i also prefer the greens over the dems, but am willing to compromise on that. if i know that polling says neither the greens nor the constitution party really have a chance, i can improve the chances of my compromise choice, the dems, by ranking the greens lower than i honestly would and ranking the fascists higher than the repubs - in fact, i would spend time and effort convincing others to do likewise.

You do realize that the popular vote has nothing to do with who should be president, yes?

that sounds rather debatable to me. "will be", sure, but not necessarily "should be".

that sounds rather debatable to me. "will be", sure, but not necessarily "should be".

Yeah, I could have phrased it better, either by saying "will be" as you suggest, or by adding "according to the constitution" to the end of my statement.

I think it would mor elikely be the other way around with Obama winning the college but not the vote.

I think that democrats would instintly quit complaining about 2000 and Republicans would be quiet because 2000 had been atoned for with 2008. The only way they would go balistic is if the dems were to bring it up later.

There's no way that either political party would go quietly if a scenario like the one in 2000 happened. It's worth too much to the party's image and agenda. It would probably play out about the same way.