PDA

View Full Version : Nightmare political scenario



jthomasou78
9/9/2008, 05:42 PM
So in a possible political outcome based on the current data could be a more dicey situation then in 2000. If the election were held today and the poll data was all accurate. Below, would be the scenario as given today.

McCain would win the popular election.

There would be a tie in the electoral college 269-269. McCain and Obama actually are tied if you look at a state by state breakdown in polling.

Obama would presumably win the election by a vote of the House of Representatives.

How you like them apples.

mdklatt
9/9/2008, 05:51 PM
McCain would win the popular election.

There would be a tie in the electoral college 269-269. McCain and Obama actually are tied if you look at a state by state breakdown in polling.

Obama would presumably win the election by a vote of the House of Representatives.


Oh the wailing and gnashing as the pubz decry the fundamental unfairness of the electoral college, just like the demz did in 2000. Bonus points if the pubz complain about the House voting to decide the election instead of it being decided by those evil activist judges instead. Good times.

royalfan5
9/9/2008, 05:58 PM
I would guess that a dead tie wouldn't happen because Obama will get one of the Nebraska votes, mostly likely the second district since we don't do winner takes all.

StoopTroup
9/9/2008, 06:00 PM
It's a nightmare that has already happened once.

soonerscuba
9/9/2008, 06:22 PM
So in a possible political outcome based on the current data could be a more dicey situation then in 2000. If the election were held today and the poll data was all accurate. Below, would be the scenario as given today.

McCain would win the popular election.

There would be a tie in the electoral college 269-269. McCain and Obama actually are tied if you look at a state by state breakdown in polling.

Obama would presumably win the election by a vote of the House of Representatives.

How you like them apples.
I would love it. Anything that abolishes the electoral college faster is ok by me.

Rogue
9/9/2008, 06:27 PM
I would love it. Anything that abolishes the electoral college faster is ok by me.

Agreed.
And one vote for one person in a national election.

AlbqSooner
9/9/2008, 08:24 PM
Agreed.
And one vote for one person in a national election.

Does that "one person" have to be alive at the time of the election for his/her vote to be counted? :D

Ike
9/9/2008, 08:37 PM
eh. It's a post-convention bounce I think. Obammer got one (altho not as much as some expected), and now the old dude is getting his...Its showing up now mainly due to the fact that polls are reported a few days after they are taken. But it's closer. I wouldn't put much stock in it though. The convention bounces are well known phenomena.

tommieharris91
9/9/2008, 08:42 PM
I would guess that a dead tie wouldn't happen because Obama will get one of the Nebraska votes, mostly likely the second district since we don't do winner takes all.

I think Minnesota can do something like this too.

SoonerStormchaser
9/9/2008, 08:47 PM
Does that "one person" have to be alive at the time of the election for his/her vote to be counted? :D

Historically...By the Dem rules, they don't.

Boomerbrad
9/9/2008, 09:58 PM
Abolishment of the electoral college would not be good for those of us in the Great Plains (I lifted the following from a couple websites):

Under a system of a strictly popular vote, a candidate would only have to campaign and demagogue to heavily-populated areas such as southern California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Candidates would never need to campaign in states like Delaware, Wyoming, and South Dakota or even Kansas or Oklahoma. Thus, in effect, the country would be run by mob rule, by the citizens of the few, densely-populated areas with similar demographics; it would likely be a system of minority rule despite the intents of those who favor this system.

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you also have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People". Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.

Furthermore, we live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress. The Congress is divided into two houses. The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power. The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will). In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power. The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union. Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.

Curly Bill
9/9/2008, 10:11 PM
I would love it. Anything that abolishes the electoral college faster is ok by me.

Never gonna happen. It would take a constitutional amendment and you're never going to get 75% of the states to ratify it. As the system now stands small states are over-represented, they will not vote to give that up.

Harry Beanbag
9/9/2008, 10:42 PM
Oh the wailing and gnashing as the pubz decry the fundamental unfairness of the electoral college, just like the demz did in 2000. Bonus points if the pubz complain about the House voting to decide the election instead of it being decided by those evil activist judges instead. Good times.

:rolleyes: You are becoming more of a partisan socialist hack every day.

Ike
9/9/2008, 10:46 PM
:rolleyes: You are becoming more of a partisan hack every day.

This statement is true for nearly every single poster on this board. Except RLIMC. He's already gone as far as one can go.

soonerscuba
9/9/2008, 11:10 PM
Abolishment of the electoral college would not be good for those of us in the Great Plains (I lifted the following from a couple websites):

Under a system of a strictly popular vote, a candidate would only have to campaign and demagogue to heavily-populated areas such as southern California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Candidates would never need to campaign in states like Delaware, Wyoming, and South Dakota or even Kansas or Oklahoma. Thus, in effect, the country would be run by mob rule, by the citizens of the few, densely-populated areas with similar demographics; it would likely be a system of minority rule despite the intents of those who favor this system.

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you also have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People". Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.

Furthermore, we live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress. The Congress is divided into two houses. The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power. The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will). In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power. The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union. Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.

I disagree given the fundamental nature of a national election of the executive which doesn't exist in any other branch of government. Frankly, I think the founders got in wrong on this front.

I realize that it isn't likely to happen, but that doesn't stop me from thinking we would benefit from a one vote system. The primary argument is that candidates wouldn't bother with the flyover country, but I think a logical counter argument would be establishing why OH, FL, VA, NM, CO and PA deserve the attention that they get to begin with. Let's not kid ourselves in think that McCain or Obama are going to give much beyond a token visit to states as Oklahoma or California in that both know who is going to win in those without even trying.

Disbanding the electoral college also comes with some side benefits in terms of face time with candidates. Six of the top ten largest cities in America are landlocked and if anything removing the electoral college forces candidates to appeal to the largest segment of society instead on mapping out why we need to spend $100m in Ohio.

Lastly, in an abstract sense, America has grown more powerful with democratization of the citizenry. I guess you could make the argument that we have done this in spite of democratic government, but I feel that we already have a check in place through the Senate and Supreme Court to ensure against mob rule. We abandoned the framers intent for representative districts long ago, so why still use the system to choose an executive?

tommieharris91
9/9/2008, 11:14 PM
This statement is true for nearly every single poster on this board. Except RLIMC. He's already gone as far as one can go.

I'm scaring myself with my McCain liking.

ouwasp
9/9/2008, 11:42 PM
An amendment is the only thing that can end the electoral college. Call it quaint, narrow-minded, whatever, not even the Supreme Court can take it down.

If the above happens, forget any "mandate". But then, the following JFK quote comes to mind. He was asked about the lack of a mandate after his close win over Nixon in '60. His response:

"Mandate, schmandate, I won, he didn't!"

Sooner02
9/10/2008, 12:07 AM
It needs to be abolished. The argument that it was in the original Constitution does not make it right or that it's written in stone. The only way to abolish it is with an amendment, which is difficult but not impossible. That's why the framers put in a process by which it can be amended by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

It's been done before-- 15th - government can't deny the vote to a person based on color (minority suffrage); 17th - popular election of Senators; 19th - government can't deny the vote to a person based on gender (women's suffrage); 24th - no poll tax; 26th - 18 year olds can vote -- and can be done again to correct the electoral college error.

Harry Beanbag
9/10/2008, 12:08 AM
I think it's cute how the libs are all against the Electoral College now. Hilarious.

Sooner02
9/10/2008, 12:12 AM
I've always been against it. The responsibility of electing the president should rest directly on the shoulders of the American people. We fight wars as a nation, pay taxes as a nation, we can elect a president by popular vote.

Harry Beanbag
9/10/2008, 12:15 AM
I've always been against it. The responsibility of electing the president should rest directly on the shoulders of the American people. We fight wars as a nation, pay taxes as a nation, we can elect a president by popular vote.


As a nation, we elect the President via Electoral College.

Sooner02
9/10/2008, 12:15 AM
As a nation, we elect the President via Electoral College.
REALLY?

Harry Beanbag
9/10/2008, 12:19 AM
REALLY?


Um, yeah?

tommieharris91
9/10/2008, 12:20 AM
I'd love to see what SicEm has to say about this thread. :pop:

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/10/2008, 01:01 AM
I would guess that a dead tie wouldn't happen because Obama will get one of the Nebraska votes, mostly likely the second district since we don't do winner takes all.Is Bugeater going Barry? You guys are better than that, no?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/10/2008, 01:04 AM
This statement is true for nearly every single poster on this board. Except RLIMC. He's already gone as far as one can go.Would that there be some conservative dem somewhere, someday...

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/10/2008, 01:06 AM
I'm scaring myself with my McCain liking.Don't kid yourself. It's the SARAH!

tommieharris91
9/10/2008, 01:28 AM
Don't kid yourself. It's the SARAH!

It just might be...

Anyway, if I vote, I'm gonna vote McCain/Palin. Ultimately, I just can't see myself supporting more guaranteed socialism.

royalfan5
9/10/2008, 08:59 AM
Is Bugeater going Barry? You guys are better than that, no?We split our votes along congressional district instead of winner take all. Obama has a good shot at the 2nd district which is eastern Nebraska minus the Omaha metro.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:53 AM
:rolleyes: You are becoming more of a partisan socialist hack every day.

Pointing out that pubz are whiny little bitches just like demz is being a partisan hack? Oh please.

And "socialist", I don't think that word means what you think it means.

soonerscuba
9/10/2008, 10:02 AM
I think it's cute how the libs are all against the Electoral College now. Hilarious.
:confused:

I don't think liberal or conservative has anything to do with it, but most liberals have despised the electoral college for the last decade.

Also, I think that the executive should garner over 50% of the vote, it sucks, but use a runoff if necessary.

Harry Beanbag
9/10/2008, 05:23 PM
:confused:

I don't think liberal or conservative has anything to do with it, but most liberals have despised the electoral college for the last decade.

Yeah, it has been pretty much a liberal deal since Bush "stole" the election from Gore in 2000.



Also, I think that the executive should garner over 50% of the vote, it sucks, but use a runoff if necessary.

You can think that, but it's obviously not a necessity to winning. W is the only one that has done it in the last 20 years.

soonerscuba
9/10/2008, 05:33 PM
You can think that, but it's obviously not a necessity to winning. W is the only one that has done it in the last 20 years.
I would only push for a 50%+1 system under a one vote system.

Curly Bill
9/10/2008, 06:02 PM
I think it's cute how the libs are all against the Electoral College now. Hilarious.

They can be against it all they want...it ain't changing.

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2008, 01:03 AM
So in a possible political outcome based on the current data could be a more dicey situation then in 2000. If the election were held today and the poll data was all accurate. Below, would be the scenario as given today.

McCain would win the popular election.

There would be a tie in the electoral college 269-269. McCain and Obama actually are tied if you look at a state by state breakdown in polling.

Obama would presumably win the election by a vote of the House of Representatives.

How you like them apples.

The biggest negative that could arise from this scenario would be the public outcry for eliminating the electoral college. It would be disastrous and the final nail in the coffin for limited-government and the Republic as we know it.

In fact, I'm not so sure this country would be worth living in any longer.

Sooner02
9/11/2008, 01:09 AM
The biggest negative that could arise from this scenario would be the public outcry for eliminating the electoral college. It would be disastrous and the final nail in the coffin for limited-government and the Republic as we know it.

In fact, I'm not so sure this country would be worth living in any longer.
We do have open borders. They go both ways.

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2008, 01:12 AM
We do have open borders. They go both ways.

Just so I'm clear, I wasn't speaking of the election of Obama. I was <-> close to voting for Obama, and I think his Presidency would have many benefits. Everything I said was in reference to eliminating the electoral college and NOT to the election of Obama.

Mandibleclaw
9/11/2008, 01:19 AM
I believe in Australia, it is law that you have to vote, it might be a good idea for us as well. I would assume "none of the above" would be allowed to run. :)

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2008, 01:21 AM
I believe in Australia, it is law that you have to vote, it might be a good idea for us as well. I would assume "none of the above" would be allowed to run. :)

Why on Earth would that be a good thing? I swear to God, if we ever adopt a mandatory voting law in this country then I am storming D.C. with a pitchfork and torch.

What reason could you possibly have in wanting every freakign moron off the street to walk into a voting booth? For God's sake, we ought to be finding creative ways to limit the voting -- not expand it.

soonerscuba
9/11/2008, 01:31 AM
Just so I'm clear, I wasn't speaking of the election of Obama. I was <-> close to voting for Obama, and I think his Presidency would have many benefits. Everything I said was in reference to eliminating the electoral college and NOT to the election of Obama.
Abstract poli-sci question time for Sic'em. Given that you are a libertarian, your party would most benefit from a fluid nebulous based government scheme such as a parliamentary system right now. Would you prefer to wait for the Republicans to jettison the religious right and get back to the Goldwater roots of the party, or overhaul the current system so that you and your confederates (pun intended) in the Libertarian Party would have a greater voice in government in the short term?

Also let's say that we **** you off bad enough to become an ex-pat, where you headed?

Sooner02
9/11/2008, 01:37 AM
For God's sake, we ought to be finding creative ways to limit the voting -- not expand it.
Hmmm, how could we impose voter registration restrictions?

You think literacy tests would work? How about poll taxes?
Gender (male only)? Race? Land ownership requirement? I dunno, what do you think?

nvm

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2008, 12:00 PM
Abstract poli-sci question time for Sic'em. Given that you are a libertarian, your party would most benefit from a fluid nebulous based government scheme such as a parliamentary system right now.

In theory, there is no reason why you can't have a system of robust and electable third parties within our current scheme. Also, I'm more a small (l) libertarian than a big (L) libertarian -- in other words, I have libertarian leanings but I'm not necessarily a Libertarian (though I have voted for libertarians will definitely do so again_


Would you prefer to wait for the Republicans to jettison the religious right and get back to the Goldwater roots of the party, or overhaul the current system so that you and your confederates (pun intended) in the Libertarian Party would have a greater voice in government in the short term?

Now this is a very very interesting question, and it's one that I have struggled with as of late. The problem for me is in determining how far gone the Republican Party is. My hope is that the GOP's flirtation with the religious-right and neo-conservatives is just a phase and both will be marginalized in the future. If the party is truly beyond redemption though then I have absolutely no qualms about abandoning the GOP for the Libertarian Party and encouraging other people to do so as well.

I think what I would like to see is the Libertarian Party, or something close to it, usurp the Republican Party as one of the dominant two parties. OR, short of that, have a system of 4 viable parties with the two main parties being the GOP and Democrat Party and each having a viable alternative. For example, the Libertarian or Constitution Parties would provide the alternative on the right (though Libertarians are not strictly "right-wing") and the Green Party providing the alternative to the Democrats. I think this would be beneficial in a whole host of ways. It would force each of the major parties to form working coalitions with the second-tier parties. It would also keep the two major parties "intellectually honest" by having an ideological alternative to their own party. Neither major party two has an ideology while virtually every 3rd party either exists solely because of ideology or a single-issue. These third-parties and their various ideologies would provide a "check" on the two major parties.


Also let's say that we **** you off bad enough to become an ex-pat, where you headed?

I'm going to find a nice abandoned island somewhere and set up a new Republic the way ours was suppose to be. There shall be states that have nearly total control over the domestic affairs of the nation and a very limited and neutered Fed that concerns itself with inter-state issues and foreign policy. It will be a shining example of free-market enterprise, limited-government, and a proper Constitution framework. The only problem is that I'll be the only one there so, like most things, it will exist only in my head.

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2008, 12:02 PM
Hmmm, how could we impose voter registration restrictions?

You think literacy tests would work? How about poll taxes?
Gender (male only)? Race? Land ownership requirement? I dunno, what do you think?

nvm

Well, you're a n00b so you weren't around when we've had these arguments in the past. I've delved into this issue countless times, but to make a long story short -- I support a basic "Citizenship Test" that would require people to have at least a basic 8th grade understanding of government before earning the right to vote.

sooner_born_1960
9/11/2008, 12:04 PM
Sooner02, don't feel bad. Your ideas certainly have merit, and should be considered.