Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
danieldlmn

electoral college votes to tie this year

Recommended Posts

USA Today reported that it is possible for the electoral college votes to tie this year for the presidential election, with both candidates getting 269 votes. If every state stays the same color except for New Hampshire and West Virginia, in which Kerry is competitive, then the electoral college will tie for only the second time ever. That would be HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. Bush would be expected to win, with 30/50 ths of the State Delegations currently controlled by Republicans. If Democrats regain control of the senate, then we could have Bush as president, and Edwards as vice president.

In the event of an electoral college tie:

"The Constitution has a process to deal with a tie in the Electoral College, which has happened once, in 1800:

• Newly elected House of Representatives would meet on Jan. 6, 2005, to choose a president from among the three top finishers. Each state delegation gets one vote.

• Newly elected Senate would choose vice president. Each senator gets one vote. "

Let us hope this does not happen.

What are your thoughts on the electoral college?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral college needs realignment. The electors in each state should be named and visible. They act as our proxy for electing the president. The parties should not be able to do as they do now. Each districts elector should vote for the president/Vice President. If the Republicans win a district, that district's republican elector should get to cast that districts vote... it should be a state level slate. This would be more a voice of the people while not losing the benefits of the college method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a scenario in which case there would be a 269-269 tie too:

house_scenario.jpg

It can be done with the current swing states. This scenario is pretty much what the current polls are saying, with the exception of Wisconsin which is currently in Bush' pocket (it'll bounce back to Kerry I think), and Nevada. Nevada tends to lean towards Bush, but if Kerry keeps reminding Nevadans about Bush dumping nuclear waste in their state Kerry will have a very decent chance.

But it's definately a possibility to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Electoral College

Without it, the last THREE Presidential Elections would have been decided by the House of Representatives, and possibly the next one, too. Either that, or we'd have a repeat of Florida 2000 every four years, in the form of runoff elections in states across the country.

Also the electoral college forces candidates to do well nationally, instead of just racking up huge vote numbers in Texas or California. This helps prevent one state or region from being too powerful, which is what the founding fathers intended.

The winner-take-all aspect of the EC is the main reason the US has a two-party system, which I believe is much preferable to a more European style multi-party system. Without it, there would be no reason for Howard Dean, John Edwards, or any number of others to pull out of the election until forced out, and again bring round after round of run-offs (and who knows what kind of deals would be made behind the scenes of these mini-elections).

I also don't think a proportinal EC would work, either, because you'd still have the problem of having the House of Represenataives deciding elections. Ralph Nader would have had 14 or 15 electoral votes in 2000 under that system.

I also like the fact that the EC exaggerates the margin of victory, and (usually) brings a sense of mandate to the winner, which has to help as the new president begins to govern.

The founding fathers got it right when they designed the electoral college, IMO. The only thing I'd want to change about it, is I think electors should be forced to vote for the candidates their pledged to.

The system I WOULD like to overhaul is the Primary system, but that's another thread. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd drop NH in the Kerry column and give Bush Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin. I also think PA's gonna swing his way, which is why I predict a landslide electorally. I'm not just saying it cause I support the President, I'm saying it because I'm being pratical. 2 months ago, I would've thought this would be a really really close race, but I'm predicting a 1996 style victory for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say but Kerry is running an awful campaign....

And is he crazy letting the scandal out about Bush???

He is already President!!!!!

People already know about that and still will vote for him.....

Just when the Swift Boat ad died off, Kerry allows this....

Watch his leadership and negative numbers go up, this is going to make him look like a complete hypocrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current scandal where the paperwork is being proven to be fake...by CNN, FoxNews, Washington Post, etc...CBS News made a big mistake not fact checking those papers, big time mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without it, the last THREE Presidential Elections would have been decided by the House of Representatives, and possibly the next one, too.

I think that if they would drop the Electoral College they would drop the rule that the House will pick the winner. They could have a second round between the 2 candidates with most votes.

In 1992 and 1996 this would have eliminated Ross Perot (I reckon that after deviding those votes Clinton would receive just over 50), and in 2000 it would have dropped Nader from the race and give Gore over 50% in the popular vote.

Also the electoral college forces candidates to do well nationally, instead of just racking up huge vote numbers in Texas or California.  This helps prevent one state or region from being too powerful, which is what the founding fathers intended.

This I don't understand. Right now the candidates spend no time in the states that are already in their pocket (New England for Kerry, South for Bush - Florida excluded). So they don't have to fight for issues that people in liberal New Jersey or conservative Georgia really want. They only have to appeal to swing state votes.

But I may be missing something here, so please explain in detail why it prevents states getting too powerful.

I also don't think a proportinal EC would work, either, because you'd still have the problem of having the House of Represenataives deciding elections.  Ralph Nader would have had 14 or 15 electoral votes in 2000 under that system.

If they're gonna change the electoral system in the US I doubt they would change the way electoral college works. IF they ever change the election process they will probably drop the electoral college alltogether.

I also like the fact that the EC exaggerates the margin of victory, and (usually) brings a sense of mandate to the winner, which has to help as the new president begins to govern.

They is the first really good argument I have ever heard in favor of the electoral college. It is indeed important to give the newly elected president the moral status of being the country's strong leader. It helps keep the office of the President one to respect an honour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the electoral college forces candidates to do well nationally, instead of just racking up huge vote numbers in Texas or California. This helps prevent one state or region from being too powerful, which is what the founding fathers intended.

You are arguing that the 50 states and DC should determine the presidency, based on popular votes cast in each state. In that case, why not just give each state one vote and determine it that way?

Unlike in a parliamentary election where each victorious candidate is elected by a given constituency to represent it, the president represents all the people. It is a bizarre system which completely disregards the weight of votes for each candidate.

Surely if people choose to live in CA, TX or NY - their voice is no less important than one of the 83 or so people in Wyoming who are significantly over-represented. The Electoral College as it stands displays a serious democratic deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pretend there's someone who gets 100% of the vote on the West Coast and New York and New England. That's about 28 million votes, out of about 105 million cast. Throw in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Michigan and Florida, DC, Maryland and Minnesota. Oh, let's add Missouri too. That's 53 million votes in those states, enough to win with zero votes anywhere else. Under our current system, it's 221 electoral votes.

Do you think people in Texas or the Dakotas or the South would stand by while that guy squeaks by with 50.1% of the popular vote? The Electoral College is designed to help ensure that someone with strong regional support must also appeal to people elsewhere in the US.

Of course, the last time something like this happened we had a civil war, but things are better now. Right? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just have a clause in the system, stating that the candidate must either have a popular majority overall, or 3/5 of the electoral votes (322)? Would that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think people in Texas or the Dakotas or the South would stand by while that guy squeaks by with 50.1% of the popular vote?

OK, let's take another scenario...

CALIFORNIA - 55 ECVs

Candidate A: 5,000,001 votes

Candidate B: 5,000,000 votes

RESULT: Candidate A gets 55 votes

OHIO - 20 ECVs

Candidate A: 0 votes

Candidate B: 4,000,000 votes

RESULT: Candidate B gets 20 votes

STANDING AFTER 2 STATES

Votes cast - Candidate B has approx 65% of vote

ECVs - Candidate A has large lead

Fair? Do you think anyone would stand by in that circumstance? (Yes, I know they seemed to in 2000...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't see your point but this electoral college crap needs to go and the main reason is because candidates only campaign in like 10 swing states instead of paying attention to the entire country u think Kerry cares about voters in Massachusetts or bush cares about voters in Alabama ...... no because they know they already have those states wrapped up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that the founding fathers intended the office of the president to be representative of the people as well as the STATES. The people have a direct say in their government - its called the house of representatives. The electoral college is in place to make sure one big state ie. New York doesn't doesn't get to choose the winner all the time, and is not the center of attention, the president will have to pay attention to those smaller states in the midwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...