What if the Democrat wins the electoral vote and loses the popular vote?

[CoffeePlease1947]

We all know that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2004 but won the electoral vote. What if it is the other way around in 2004. What would we do? It is virtually impossible to lose the electoral college in 2004 if we get Florida. But it is possible that the Republicans show up in force in the Republican states and win the popular vote.

Mike

[bowens43]

1. What do you mean 'what would we do?' ?

We'd win. I guess I don't understand the question.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

3. "didn't win the popular vote in 2004 but won the popular vote"

and I thought I was tired... goodnight.

[radwriter0555]

28. The elected 'president' will appoint bush as Chancellor... er, wait

a minute... I'm having a deja vu moment...

Where has that happened before?

Think, dammit, THINK!

[shatoga]

4. don't worry/ the 04 'election' is already FIXED- Bush won

Republican owned companies manufacture the electronic voting machines.

-Winners can be pre-selected-
One Florida "touch-screen" voter;
interviewed leaving the polls, Escambia County Florida 2002:
"I selected (the Democrat) for Governor.
The machine showed a vote for (Jeb) Bush.
I tried again...and again; nearly a dozen times-
before it finally showed a vote for (the Democrat);
then I entered the vote."
Peering into the camera;
"Bush said he'd fix the election problems.
Well..he sure FIXED 'EM!"

(Interview approx 2pm on election day, NBC-15; was cut out of later 'news'coverage)

-Winners can be pre-selected-
-Or results "corrected" after the actual vote total shows Democrats won.

OOPs "We made a mistake! Correction: The Republican won."

It was done successfully in Alabama already:

Baldwin County decided that it was impossible for people in a rightwing county to vote for a Libertarian,
so;
They corrected the totals by giving all Libertarian votes to the Republican.

Then locked all records and refused to allow a recount.
It worked!

Look for more of the same, regardless of balloting method used.

Republicans cannot win an honest election.
Mary Landreiu proved that by recruiting enough poll watchers to prevent Republicans "fixing" the election in Louisiana.

That's the ONLY way we can win!

Poll watchers everywhere-
Notarys' Public outside polls to notarize "I did NOT vote for Bush" sworn statements in order to force recalls.
(when 'official' results show too many votes for Bush/ the sworn statements provide the key to unlock the actual vote count)

[leetrisck]

5. In the book "Bush v Gore"

the story is that the Republicans thought they would win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. They fully intended to challenge the electoral college and meant for bush to be prez anyway one way or the other.

[politick]

10. Yes, they had that covered too

and were prepared to launch a major legal and media blitz on how unfair the electoral system is, how it denies votes to normal Americans, how it's snobby, elitist, probably invented by a liberal... etc.

[Gore1FL]

6. Bush didn't win the electoral vote legitimately

Florida sent electors for a candidate that lost by thousands of votes (not including hanging/pregneant chads, the GOP absentee ballot fraud, and the Butterfly ballot.

Don't confuse corruption in Florida with an electoral victory.

[Skittles]

7. THANK YOU

as much as I think the electoral college is an antiquated institution that needs to be scrapped, I would have accepted BUsh if he had legitimately won the election. But it is so damn obvious he did not.

[JVS]

8. I'd hurl feces at my Repuke neighbors and laugh at them

Of course, that's my plan for any election outcome.

[uptohere]

9. then he wins

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Then we have a Democratic President

[Catherine Vincent]

12. Then we'll have our own illegitimate president. LOL!

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Not at all

You don't have to win the majority of the popular vote to win legitimately. When Perot ran, no one got a majority.

[Yupster]

20. No Democratic candidate has won a majority of the popular votes since

Jimmy Carter 27 years ago.

[Starpass]

13. I would have loved to seen if the repukes had argued the other way

In other words, if Bush did end up getting the popular vote in 2000 but Gore won the electoral vote. What were our Supreme Criminals set to do??---were they going to declare UNCONSTITUTIONAL a part of the US Constitution. I'll bet they had a one time only tap dance to cover that. Otherwise, it would have been just downright clownish for the Bushies to have pushed such a challenge. It's like saying, "I didn't get enough votes, so it isn't fair, and so I need the SC to declare me a winner"---(opps, they did that one didn't they; and the criminals of the SC invented a law). Wouldn't it be a riot if it turned out the reverse this election as the orginal poster outlined?? And you know what, they would have the shitting balls to try just such a suit...and I'm scared shitless that the criminals are waiting to invent law again, if needed, to give Bush the White House.

[slackmaster]

14. Throw a party?

:party:

[BurtWorm]

15. Payback.

It's not likely to happen though. Republicans aren't popular.

[tjdee]

16. Republican knuckledraggers will become violent.

That's what I thought would happen in 2000, actually.
Their Brooks Brothers mob wouldn't be necessary, because the baser elements of their party will get outraged and cause all kinds of trouble. I seriously, seriously wouldn't be surprised if a few of them advocated overthrowing the government.

[Liberal Classic]

18. It's a feature, not a bug

People around here don't like the electoral college, but as you point out, CoffeePlease, the same thing could happen in a close race with the Democrat coming out on top. In contests that are very close is the only time the electoral votes mean any thing at all. This time, the vote went against the Democrats, so naturally they raise hell. However, it could have just as easily gone the other direction.

The electoral college does not exist simply because the fastest communication method in the 18th century was the man on horseback. It exists because of a compromise between large states and small. It was argued by the large states that one vote per state wasn't fair to them, and it was argued by the small states that a purely popular election of the executive wasn't fair to them. They were both right!

All the electoral college does is see that small states aren't ignored. With a purely popular election of the president, why would presidential candidates campaign anywhere but New York and California? The answer is they would not, when all the votes they need are in the most densely populated areas. However, if each state cast one vote for president, this would not be fair to states with large populations. Of course they have more people and as such more influence. Would it be fair that Wyoming has the same number of votes as California? No of course not. But would it be fair for Wyoming to have no influence at all? No of course not, either. In years in which the count is solidly in favor of one camp or the other, the electoral college is meaningless anyway. It becomes important when the tally is close, and that is when it comes into play.

Consider that any of the other 49 states could have swung the election to Gore. Everything can't be blamed on Florida, because Gore should have carried his home state. The very same thing could happen in favor of the Democrats next time, they could swing one more small state their way and take the presidency. If there was no electoral college, why would candidates even care about the small states? The answer is they wouldn't otherwise.

This is what people forget about the electoral college. A lot of people around here would simply do away with it without consideration to the reasons it was created.

[kentuck]

19. Please don't promote the lie that Bush "won" the electoral vote...

He didn't win the popular vote or the electoral vote...If the Supremes had not given him Florida and had permitted the votes to be counted fairly, he wouldhave lost that state also...

[Yupster]

21. If the Supremes had not given Bush Florida's electoral votes,

then the Florida state legislature was prepared to do it.

The Republican legislature was ready to appoint their own slate of Bush electors before the Constitutional deadline, and Bush would have won that way anyway.

The Constitution says (article 2, Section 1) "each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of ..."

The Constitution doesn't even require a popular vote for president, and for many years many states didn't have a popular vote for president. The legislature would just appoint electors and that would be that.

In this particular case, the Florida legislature was ready to step in if the courts went against them.

The next step would have been for a state with a Democratic legislature that voted for Bush to appoint its own slate of electors for Gore. It could have become a much worse mess than it did.

Incidently, the Speaker of the Florida Legislature who said he would have a slate of electors ready to go before deadline if the courts were wrong, has since been elected to congress.

It's hard to remember that state legislatures used to be very important bodies, more important than congress in many ways. They used to wield enormous powers, but they have been largely whittled away over time by courts and congress.

[Yupster]

23. One president in US history

lost the popular votes and electoral votes, both by wide margins and was still elected president.

He was ....


John Quincy Adams in 1824.

[Aristus]

27. A one-term President who was the son of a one-term President.

We can hope that history will repeat itself.

I actually have a great deal of admiration for the Adamses. Quincy wasn't a terribly good President, but he was one of the best Congressional representatives in American history.

[moondust]

22. What was the Bush plan in 2000?

Everybody knew they had contingency plan for them winning the popular vote but not the electoral vote because that was the widely predicted outcome. Was it ever made public?

[wickerwoman]

24. It's extremely unlikely

if for no other reason than the blue states have much higher populations than the red states. The electoral college was designed to favor mid-western states with smaller populations who tend to vote Republican.
Gore won the popular vote because states like New Jersey, New York and California with huge populations voted for him "above and beyond" the call of duty up to 70 or 75% in some cases. Since it's extremely unlikely that Bush will carry any high population states, and that those states will not vote Dem well over 50%, it would be almost impossible for Bush to win the popular vote but not win the electoral college. The Republican states just don't have that many people in them.

[Yupster]

25. Don't Mess With Texas

we are # 2 in population. Passed NY but still can't see California's exhaust.

but your point is correct. The Republican gets an advantage from the electoral college because of the over-weighted western states. It is less likely that a Republican would win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote than the other way around.

[not systems]

26. party like it is1999

And hope that enough republicans will vote
to get rid of the electoral college once
and for all.

It would be great for Dems because the red state
voters get more representation in the electoral
college than blue state voters per person.