Bush vs Gore

[Mott the Hoople]

Since States really haven't made and significant progress on the issues of recounts in federal elections and with Romney leading in national polls but being significantly behind in the electoral votes it's distinctly possible that Obama could win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. In which case you know Republicans are going to howl as loud as Democrats did in 2000 only to have Bush Vs. Gore jump up and bite them on the ass. Wouldn't that be funny?

 

[Bonestorm]

Since States really haven't made and significant progress on the issues of recounts in federal elections and with Romney leading in national polls but being significantly behind in the electoral votes it's distinctly possible that Obama could win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. In which case you know Republicans are going to howl as loud as Democrats did in 2000 only to have Bush Vs. Gore jump up and bite them on the ass. Wouldn't that be funny?

Except Bush v. Gore doesn't count for anything except that one time it counted for everything.

 

[Bonestorm]

If Romney were to win the national popular vote and lose the electoral college, my only hope is that it would prompt stubbornly recalcitrant Republican legislatures to adopt the national popular vote act.

 

[cawacko]

My recollection is there was talk from the Bush camp (or at least some punditry) prior to that 2000 election where they thought they might actually win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.

Even if the reverse were to happen this time (Romney popular Obama electoral) I still can't see Republicans from the smaller states calling for a national popular election.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Except Bush v. Gore doesn't count for anything except that one time it counted for everything.

What do you mean? I thought Bush Vs Gore was all about counting?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My recollection is there was talk from the Bush camp (or at least some punditry) prior to that 2000 election where they thought they might actually win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.

Even if the reverse were to happen this time (Romney popular Obama electoral) I still can't see Republicans from the smaller states calling for a national popular election.

Oh puleaaase! If that happens to either candidate you'll hear no end to the howling for 6 months!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If Romney were to win the national popular vote and lose the electoral college, my only hope is that it would prompt stubbornly recalcitrant Republican legislatures to adopt the national popular vote act.

I'm actually a fan of the electoral college. It forces Presidential candidates to campaign for the votes of smaller States and thus consider their interest where as with just the popular vote our metropolitan areas would dominate the electoral process and thus recieve disproportionate representation. Having said that I wouldn't be opposed to States dividing their electoral votes based upon the popular election results in their States as opposed to winner take all. That would virtually eliminate the odds of someone winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote.

 

[cawacko]

Oh puleaaase! If that happens to either candidate you'll hear no end to the howling for 6 months!

Of course people would be pissed they lost but I'll bet you any amount of money if that senario occurs we will not see Republicans from small states trying to pass legislation to do away with the electoral college.

 

[Bonestorm]

That's a good thing!

Not really. It means that the principles of law (and I'm using this term very loosely here, considering) on which Bush v. Gore was decided are not binding on any court anywhere ever. So the Court could do whatever the hell it wanted in Romney v. Obama.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm actually a fan of the electoral college. It forces Presidential candidates to campaign for the votes of smaller States and thus consider their interest where as with just the popular vote our metropolitan areas would dominate the electoral process and thus recieve disproportionate representation. Having said that I wouldn't be opposed to States dividing their electoral votes based upon the popular election results in their States as opposed to winner take all. That would virtually eliminate the odds of someone winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote.

The electoral college forces candidate to campaign in swing states, regardless of size. It doesn't force candidates to campaign in small states at all except where those small states happen to be swing states.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Of course people would be pissed they lost but I'll bet you any amount of money if that senario occurs we will not see Republicans from small states trying to pass legislation to do away with the electoral college.

Well Duh! That's because smaller States are over represented by the Electoral college. They'd be idiots to do that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The electoral college forces candidate to campaign in swing states, regardless of size. It doesn't force candidates to campaign in small states at all except where those small states happen to be swing states.

That's still better than the lop sided representation you'd get with just the popular vote. Candidates would only care about the NE/West Coast/Great Lakes/Texas Triangle & Florida Megalopolis.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Since States really haven't made and significant progress on the issues of recounts in federal elections and with Romney leading in national polls but being significantly behind in the electoral votes it's distinctly possible that Obama could win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. In which case you know Republicans are going to howl as loud as Democrats did in 2000 only to have Bush Vs. Gore jump up and bite them on the ass. Wouldn't that be funny?

i just said the same thing in another thread.

I dont think conservatives will howl about the electoral college. they are principled and don't want to undo a foundation of america just because something didn't go their way. liberals are natural crybabies.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I'm actually a fan of the electoral college. It forces Presidential candidates to campaign for the votes of smaller States and thus consider their interest where as with just the popular vote our metropolitan areas would dominate the electoral process and thus recieve disproportionate representation. Having said that I wouldn't be opposed to States dividing their electoral votes based upon the popular election results in their States as opposed to winner take all. That would virtually eliminate the odds of someone winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote.

i think there is a state or two that does do that. it's up to the states on how they want to divide their votes, so nothing is stoppin them. I could be wrong though.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Since States really haven't made and significant progress on the issues of recounts in federal elections and with Romney leading in national polls but being significantly behind in the electoral votes it's distinctly possible that Obama could win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. In which case you know Republicans are going to howl as loud as Democrats did in 2000 only to have Bush Vs. Gore jump up and bite them on the ass. Wouldn't that be funny?

Bullshit premise. Romney is only behind by 10 electoral votes.

Even the libs smell Obama's defeat

 

[Bonestorm]

That's still better than the lop sided representation you'd get with just the popular vote. Candidates would only care about the NE/West Coast/Great Lakes/Texas Triangle & Florida Megalopolis.

What's lop-sided about the places with the most people mattering the most?

 

[Bonestorm]

i think there is a state or two that does do that. it's up to the states on how they want to divide their votes, so nothing is stoppin them. I could be wrong though.

I believe that Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes by congressional district. Romney may very well win one of Maine's electoral votes even thgugh he's going to lose the state as a whole.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i just said the same thing in another thread.

I dont think conservatives will howl about the electoral college. they are principled and don't want to undo a foundation of america just because something didn't go there way. liberals are natural crybabies.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i think there is a state or two that does do that. it's up to the states on how they want to divide their votes, so nothing is stoppin them. I could be wrong though.

No, you're right. It's a State issue. Most States would have to change their constitution and neither party would want proportional representation in the electoral vote. I'm sure they prefer winner taks all. It would take a referendum by the individual States to make such a change.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What's lop-sided about the places with the most people mattering the most?

That's a good question. At the State level rual areas are grossly over represented. Most the people in Ohio live in one of the three metro areas which are predominantly Democratic but our legislature (both houses) are dominated by Republicans from rural regions.