Crybaby Democrats? Republicans defend the will of the people... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Macheath · 06-09-2003, 01:12 AM

Found this linked on fark.com. Absolutely hilarious in light of everything that happened, especially if you're a fan of "alternative histories".

---------------------------------------------------

Quote:

'What If' Scenarios Add Spark to Election

NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 2, 2000

If next Tuesday’s election is as close a contest as the polls suggest, the results could create some interesting problems. Political experts are speculating on a few "what ifs" that could leave the nation in a tizzy.

One candidate, for example, could win the popular vote while the other presidential hopeful walks out with a majority of the Electoral College vote. That has happened only three times in our nation’s history: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888 all ended up in the White House despite losing the popular vote.

And it almost happened in 1976. Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford by about 1.7 million votes. A switch of a mere 5,500 votes in Ohio and 6,500 votes in Mississippi would have handed both to Ford, giving him an Electoral College victory.

It’s not all that outlandish to suggest this is what could happen Tuesday. As a matter of fact, the Bush and Gore campaigns have thought seriously about the possibility that Bush might win the popular vote handily and still lose the electoral vote.

To the Gore people, the answer is simple: "Then we win," a Gore aide told the New York Daily News.

"You play by the rules in force at the time. If the nation were really outraged by the possibility, then the system would have been changed long ago. The history is clear."

But if it does happen, don’t expect the Bush campaign to simply walk away.

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

The strategy for such a fight relies on widespread public outrage, which the Bush campaign would be ready to encourage and foment into a popular movement to convince the 538 electors chosen in Tuesday’s elections to switch to Bush, which is legally permissible.

When you vote for president you're really selecting presidential electors who favor one candidate or the other. But these electors are not legally obligated to support the candidate to whom they are pledged when they meet in their various state capitals to cast their ballots on Dec. 18.

Although the rules differ from state to state, it’s possible that enough of the Gore electors could switch to Bush – if they wanted to – and enable him to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

The Bush campaign is already putting together material about the obvious unfairness of the Electoral College process, and it would be fed to talk radio and friendly media to stir up the natives.

"We'd have ads, too," the Bush aide said, "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."

Should the result go the other way, and were Bush to win the electoral vote while Gore won the popular vote, Gore would also fight.

"Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for," a Gore campaign official told the News. "They're just further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."

Suppose George Bush and Al Gore end up tied in the electoral vote. It’s conceivable that the 538 members of the Electoral College could split 269-269.

The federal official responsible for coordinating the Electoral College told Fox News he put some hypothetical state-by-state results into a computer and was stunned to discover that "it wasn't all that hard to conjure a tie" for Bush and Gore.

In the event of an Electoral College tie, the whole mess would end up in the lap of Congress, where the presidential election would be held in the House and each state would have one vote.

The Senate would select the new vice president under the same voting conditions.

With each legislative body voting for a different office, it is possible we could end up with Bush as president and Joe Lieberman as the vice president – or with Gore as president and Dick Cheney as his V.P.

Then there’s the chance that the vote in the House could end up in a tie – 25 votes for each candidate.

If no new president or vice president has been elected by Inauguration Day, the Presidential Succession Act ordains that the speaker of the House serve as acting president, followed by the president pro tempore of the new Senate – in this case possibly 98-year-old Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.

"There is a law or a rule for every one of these things," Berns said. "All they have to do is follow the rules and we'll end up with a president."

---------------------------------------------------

Remember that Daily Show debate between Governor Bush and President Bush on foreign policy? They could make this one into a mock "our Bush vs alternative universe Bush" debate on the merits of the electoral college.

btw - gotta love NewsMax.

Liquor Dealer · 06-09-2003, 04:48 AM

While this is done injest it does bring up a problem that has haunted us in the past. We no longer live in a world that needs travel time for electors to reach the Capitol to cast their vote. A lot of things have changed since the framers of the Constitution established the first set of ground rules. The Electoral College needs to go the way of other White Elephants and just fade into oblivion.

Sparhawk · 06-09-2003, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
While this is done injest it does bring up a problem that has haunted us in the past. We no longer live in a world that needs travel time for electors to reach the Capitol to cast their vote. A lot of things have changed since the framers of the Constitution established the first set of ground rules. The Electoral College needs to go the way of other White Elephants and just fade into oblivion.

Wow, I agree with Liqour Dealer!

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 06:38 AM

i can see what the electoral college was supposed to do, and it's not currently doing what the founders intented.

yes, we should have some kind of a system that would filter out extreme positions (if the majority gets extreme), but the electoral college is not doing that.

it's time to go.

Daval · 06-09-2003, 06:59 AM

I agree as well. The electoral college system is old, outdated and just plain stupid.

The_Dude · 06-09-2003, 07:21 AM

think bush would ever kill something that got him into office?

saladami82 · 06-14-2003, 02:54 PM

The electoral college.. is a form of protecting state's rights and preventing a "regional candidate." The same voting impact is rendered from winning 51% of a state vs winning 100% (or even lower with more candidates involved). Why is this desirable? The first time Andrew Jackson ran for president he won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote because he won a vast majority (80%+) in his home state and several surrounding (southern) states. He just plain ignored the wishes and desires of half the country. Under a popular vote system a modern candidate's best bet would be to woo the largest cities and leave people in say.. Idaho.. high and dry. Currently even the dinkiest states are worth campaigning.

Speaking of voting reforms.. what about the time differences across the country? I used to live in hawaii, and every presidential election that occured while I lived there (not the 2000 one) has been declared "over" on TV by the time anyone in hawaii would consider/be able to vote. This has to have some kind of effect on the west coast. Granted, most voters simply vote along party lines that they chose years or decades before. But middle of the road voters, if they exist, would have no reason to vote when the TV says it's already over.

Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses.

-saladami

Macheath · 06-14-2003, 04:06 PM

That's remarkable saladami82. I had no idea they started counting votes BEFORE some people had even had the chance to consider voting.

Here in Australia, The booths are open at 8am (always a Saturday). No counting starts until the end of the day. They don't even crack open the ballot boxes until precisely 6pm. Nobody is voting after the counting starts and a winner is typically declared by around 10 or 11pm

There are a few other factors; It's compulsory to vote, There's ONE electoral commission only, Time difference across the country is 2 hours, voting methods are uniform across all areas (and low tech).

All this is only voting for parliamentary representatives - we don't currently vote for the "President" (Governor-General), who's a conventionally powerless figurehead representing an irrelevant foreign monarch. We're trying to change that part of the system.

Interesting differences...

Liquor Dealer · 06-14-2003, 05:00 PM

"Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses."

-saladami

These are some very good ideas. We live in the central time zone and often the networks have predicted winners before the polls close here - and long before many Californians have had a chance to vote. I don't know what the logistics would be, or how secure this would be but anything would beat what we have now.

I really think that if politics are going to ever be really fair the entire system needs to be changed. The very idea of starting to run for an office two years before the election is ridiculous. Let me throw something at you. Let's make it against the law to even announce you are a candidate until 90 days before the election and that you can spend no more campaigning than the salary for the office would pay for the term of office.

hlprmnky · 06-15-2003, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
"Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses."

-saladami

These are some very good ideas. We live in the central time zone and often the networks have predicted winners before the polls close here - and long before many Californians have had a chance to vote. I don't know what the logistics would be, or how secure this would be but anything would beat what we have now.

I think that eventually a system like this will be the way things are done. Some communities have already experimented with using networked computer systems to collect and tabulate votes. If I weren't so damned lazy I'd google for the articles I've read on the subject. Basically, like any new technology which is ripe for screwups, miscounts, fraud and exploitation, computerized voting is going to have to be vetted and proven safe and secure over and over again before the people trust it, and will probably have to work its way slooooowly up from small communities to larger. But I agree 100%, paper ballots are crap.

Quote:

I really think that if politics are going to ever be really fair the entire system needs to be changed. The very idea of starting to run for an office two years before the election is ridiculous. Let me throw something at you. Let's make it against the law to even announce you are a candidate until 90 days before the election and that you can spend no more campaigning than the salary for the office would pay for the term of office.

Again, I'm 100% with you on finance reform, and I must say that the 'spend what you'll be paid' rule is an excellent idea which I haven't seen before. As far as the 90-day window for candidacy, I wonder why you feel this is important? For sitting officials I can see not wanting to have the spending all their time campaigning. But the people who run for office are usually professional politicians; why should they have to muzzle themselves if they know what seat they want to hold and how they want to use that power? Incumbents have a paid staff to handle their image precisely so they don't have to worry about campaign issues while they're running things, if I understand correctly. I think that a 90-day window rule would just lead to candidates (incumbent and challenger both) campaigning by other means for one year and 270 days.

Dragonlich · 06-15-2003, 08:15 AM

We already have computerized voting in the Netherlands since the early 90's. I have never used the pen-and-paper method since I started voting at age 18, some 8 years ago...

We get results quickly, and they're usually very reliable.

Of course, we're a small country, and have a very different set of election rules.

Liquor Dealer · 06-15-2003, 08:19 AM

My reasoning for the time limit is that those elected officials who are running for reelection or for another office do not do the job they were elected to in the beginning - getting elected seems to be more important than running government. Perhaps pass a law that limits any personal appearance by a candidate at any electoral finction until 90 days before the election - let their staff do the campaigning - if you were to adopt my financial suggestions then that amount of time would be unnecessary - they couldn't afford to campaign but one day.

KillerYoda · 06-17-2003, 01:41 AM

Without the Electoral College, it would be mob rule, and as a result, that guy Ruben from American Idol would be President.

seretogis · 06-17-2003, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Without the Electoral College, it would be mob rule, and as a result, that guy Ruben from American Idol would be President.

hahaha, that was a hilarious post, and cannot go unrewarded. therefore:

Sparhawk · 06-17-2003, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Without the Electoral College, it would be mob rule, and as a result, that guy Ruben from American Idol would be President.

Well, he did get a quarter of the votes that Bush got...

Rueben in '08!!

Scipio · 06-17-2003, 09:05 AM

Keep the electoral college, but eliminate the electors received for senators. If you live in Montana, your vote counts more than a Californian's does.

For what it's worth, the electoral system doesn't discrminate against regional candidates. In fact, it empowers them. A broad based third party candidate will never be elected. Just look at Perot. A third party candidate would have to be regionally based to win any electors at all, and would have to have a pretty darn big region to win the election.

For elections, they need to make election day a holiday. Then, they need to consider online voting, computerized voting, and eliminating lever and push card voting machines. Some of the intermediate scan-type machines are still cool, because they enter data electronically, and are easy to read.

They have wicked encryption for lots of stuff. No reason they can't make electronic voting secure enough to be useful.

geep · 06-17-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scipio
Keep the electoral college, but eliminate the electors received for senators. If you live in Montana, your vote counts more than a Californian's does.

For the people who live in states that no one seems to mention during campaign time this might seem to be a spirit lifter, but the truth is that a candidate could lose all the states with 10 electors or less and still be president by a landslide. A candidate need only win 13 of the 50 states to become president

Quote:

Originally posted by Scipio
For elections, they need to make election day a holiday.

Everyone would be "out of town". I doubt it would increase the turnout at the polls by a very large margin, if any at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by Scipio
Then, they need to consider online voting, computerized voting, and eliminating lever and push card voting machines. Some of the intermediate scan-type machines are still cool, because they enter data electronically, and are easy to read.

I'm sure Microsoft would love to include this software with their next release of Windows, wouldn't you President Gates?

Scipio · 06-17-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

For the people who live in states that no one seems to mention during campaign time this might seem to be a spirit lifter, but the truth is that a candidate could lose all the states with 10 electors or less and still be president by a landslide. A candidate need only win 13 of the 50 states to become president

The divide really isn't between large and small states, but rather, between urban and rural voters.

geep · 06-17-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scipio
The divide really isn't between large and small states, but rather, between urban and rural voters.

Yeah, I agree. States with large urban populations have large electoral vote numbers. It does give urban dwellers the edge.

Scipio · 06-17-2003, 11:40 AM

Quite the opposite. In states with large populations, more voters compete for fewer electoral votes.

Census Data

California
Population: 33,871,648
Electoral Votes: 55
Citizens per Electoral Vote: 615,848

Arkansas
Population: 2,679,733
Electoral Votes: 6
Citizens per Electoral Vote: 446,622

Wyoming
Population: 493,782
Electoral Votes: 3
Citizens per Electoral Vote: 164,594 (!)

Scipio · 06-17-2003, 12:00 PM

And it's also worth pointing out, Bush won with rural areas and small states, plus texas and florida.

geep · 06-17-2003, 01:12 PM

In most cities the vote was split more evenly between the candidates, whereas Bush won overwhelmingly in the rural areas. But my point was that most states do not split their electoral vote but give it to a candidate as a whole. Most of their citizens live in urban areas, especially in the states with a large number of electoral votes. If these urban areas where to vote as a block they would easily overtake the rural areas. If an issue galvanized the rural and urban areas, the vote would favor the urbanites.

06-09-2003, 04:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	While this is done injest it does bring up a problem that has haunted us in the past. We no longer live in a world that needs travel time for electors to reach the Capitol to cast their vote. A lot of things have changed since the framers of the Constitution established the first set of ground rules. The Electoral College needs to go the way of other White Elephants and just fade into oblivion. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

06-09-2003, 06:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i can see what the electoral college was supposed to do, and it's not currently doing what the founders intented. yes, we should have some kind of a system that would filter out extreme positions (if the majority gets extreme), but the electoral college is not doing that. it's time to go. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-09-2003, 06:59 AM	#5 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I agree as well. The electoral college system is old, outdated and just plain stupid. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

06-09-2003, 07:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	think bush would ever kill something that got him into office? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-14-2003, 02:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
saladami82 Upright Location: NJ	The electoral college.. is a form of protecting state's rights and preventing a "regional candidate." The same voting impact is rendered from winning 51% of a state vs winning 100% (or even lower with more candidates involved). Why is this desirable? The first time Andrew Jackson ran for president he won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote because he won a vast majority (80%+) in his home state and several surrounding (southern) states. He just plain ignored the wishes and desires of half the country. Under a popular vote system a modern candidate's best bet would be to woo the largest cities and leave people in say.. Idaho.. high and dry. Currently even the dinkiest states are worth campaigning. Speaking of voting reforms.. what about the time differences across the country? I used to live in hawaii, and every presidential election that occured while I lived there (not the 2000 one) has been declared "over" on TV by the time anyone in hawaii would consider/be able to vote. This has to have some kind of effect on the west coast. Granted, most voters simply vote along party lines that they chose years or decades before. But middle of the road voters, if they exist, would have no reason to vote when the TV says it's already over. Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses. -saladami Last edited by saladami82; 06-14-2003 at 02:56 PM..

06-14-2003, 04:06 PM	#8 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	That's remarkable saladami82. I had no idea they started counting votes BEFORE some people had even had the chance to consider voting. Here in Australia, The booths are open at 8am (always a Saturday). No counting starts until the end of the day. They don't even crack open the ballot boxes until precisely 6pm. Nobody is voting after the counting starts and a winner is typically declared by around 10 or 11pm There are a few other factors; It's compulsory to vote, There's ONE electoral commission only, Time difference across the country is 2 hours, voting methods are uniform across all areas (and low tech). All this is only voting for parliamentary representatives - we don't currently vote for the "President" (Governor-General), who's a conventionally powerless figurehead representing an irrelevant foreign monarch. We're trying to change that part of the system. Interesting differences...

06-14-2003, 05:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	"Sure the system could be a lot better.. but why think about that when florida uses ballots people can't even understand, and media coverage affects the outcome. I say take the whole mess electronic, count it all at once. "Please touch a picture of your candidate and/or their affiliated party symbol please." It's a presidential election there shouldn't be any room for bullshit excuses." -saladami These are some very good ideas. We live in the central time zone and often the networks have predicted winners before the polls close here - and long before many Californians have had a chance to vote. I don't know what the logistics would be, or how secure this would be but anything would beat what we have now. I really think that if politics are going to ever be really fair the entire system needs to be changed. The very idea of starting to run for an office two years before the election is ridiculous. Let me throw something at you. Let's make it against the law to even announce you are a candidate until 90 days before the election and that you can spend no more campaigning than the salary for the office would pay for the term of office. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

06-15-2003, 08:15 AM	#11 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	We already have computerized voting in the Netherlands since the early 90's. I have never used the pen-and-paper method since I started voting at age 18, some 8 years ago... We get results quickly, and they're usually very reliable. Of course, we're a small country, and have a very different set of election rules.

06-15-2003, 08:19 AM	#12 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	My reasoning for the time limit is that those elected officials who are running for reelection or for another office do not do the job they were elected to in the beginning - getting elected seems to be more important than running government. Perhaps pass a law that limits any personal appearance by a candidate at any electoral finction until 90 days before the election - let their staff do the campaigning - if you were to adopt my financial suggestions then that amount of time would be unnecessary - they couldn't afford to campaign but one day. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

06-17-2003, 01:41 AM	#13 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	Without the Electoral College, it would be mob rule, and as a result, that guy Ruben from American Idol would be President. __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

06-17-2003, 09:05 AM	#16 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Keep the electoral college, but eliminate the electors received for senators. If you live in Montana, your vote counts more than a Californian's does. For what it's worth, the electoral system doesn't discrminate against regional candidates. In fact, it empowers them. A broad based third party candidate will never be elected. Just look at Perot. A third party candidate would have to be regionally based to win any electors at all, and would have to have a pretty darn big region to win the election. For elections, they need to make election day a holiday. Then, they need to consider online voting, computerized voting, and eliminating lever and push card voting machines. Some of the intermediate scan-type machines are still cool, because they enter data electronically, and are easy to read. They have wicked encryption for lots of stuff. No reason they can't make electronic voting secure enough to be useful. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

06-17-2003, 11:40 AM	#20 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Quite the opposite. In states with large populations, more voters compete for fewer electoral votes. Census Data California Population: 33,871,648 Electoral Votes: 55 Citizens per Electoral Vote: 615,848 Arkansas Population: 2,679,733 Electoral Votes: 6 Citizens per Electoral Vote: 446,622 Wyoming Population: 493,782 Electoral Votes: 3 Citizens per Electoral Vote: 164,594 (!)

06-17-2003, 12:00 PM	#21 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	And it's also worth pointing out, Bush won with rural areas and small states, plus texas and florida. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

06-17-2003, 01:12 PM	#22 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	In most cities the vote was split more evenly between the candidates, whereas Bush won overwhelmingly in the rural areas. But my point was that most states do not split their electoral vote but give it to a candidate as a whole. Most of their citizens live in urban areas, especially in the states with a large number of electoral votes. If these urban areas where to vote as a block they would easily overtake the rural areas. If an issue galvanized the rural and urban areas, the vote would favor the urbanites.