Electoral College Tie

I like the electoral college but in the event of a electoral tie, I'd say give it to the popular vote winner.

I'm fine with the electoral college, and remain unconvinced that changing the system will yield better results.

I think it might be humorous to have a Republican Prez and a Democrat Vice. Unfortunately, there'd probably be less potential for hijinks as Bush would proceed to ignore Edwards...

For the most part I agree with Draginol....

, A Bush/Edwards administration? That would be HILARIOUS! Heck, it'd be worth the really confused 4 years for SURE! Just think, you could tell your grandkids, "Yessiree, I was alive when the electoral college tied for the second time in history... (smack, smack... put in dentures)... Yep, an' we got a 'publican president with a democrat vice president... yup... And it was craaazy times, chillins, let me tell you that." And of course, your beautiful young grandkids would say in return, "Aw, shut up, granma!" and go back to their Nintendo.
Beautiful picture, huh?
But seriously, though... Surely the entertainment value alone would make it all worthwhile!

I'd recommend reviewing George Will's piece in Newsweek on the Electoral College from 2-3 weeks ago - worth taking a look at and makes a pretty good case for the wisdom of the Electoral Collage, especially the all-or-none nature of the individual state votes.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Thanks for this write up. I read the first part (about the potential tie) a day or so ago and wondered what system was in place for this. I just hadn't bothered to google it up as of yet. And now, thanks to you, I don't have to.

As for what I think, well, at least we have something in place and that's better than having nothing. I think going with the popular vote winner would work and maybe be better, though, as the possibility of a president and vice president from opposing parties (that didn't run that way) would cause many problems.

Although, do you think Bush (or Kerry if it went the other way somehow) would ever take a vacation in this situation.

Oooh my god, think of all the law suits that would be started.

I think that if both sides fill more then 50 law suits each then Nader should be voted in by default.

I think that if both sides fill more then 50 law suits each then Nader should be voted in by default.

I would say if anyone's going to be voted in by default, it should be someone who's actually on the ballot in all 50 states (which would exclude Nader from consideration).

I would say if anyone's going to be voted in by default, it should be someone who's actually on the ballot in all 50 states (which would exclude Nader from consideration).

Lol.

But seriously, though... Surely the entertainment value alone would make it all worthwhile!

It would be quite funny. Actually, right now Ahhhnold is the repub. gov. of california and Bustamante is the lt. gov. Shows you how much would get done in this country. I think that in the event of a tie, the popular vote should take over. I was reading somewhere that some states are trying to make ammendments to their constitutions to divide their electoral college votes up based on the percentage each candidate recieves in that state. What do you think about that?

I saw that article. I shudder to think it could happen.

On a side note, there's a ballot issue in Colorado that would divide the state's electoral votes proportionally to the candidates based on how much of the popular vote they garnered (and it's retroactive to THIS election if it passes).

On a side note, there's a ballot issue in Colorado that would divide the state's electoral votes proportionally to the candidates based on how much of the popular vote they garnered (and it's retroactive to THIS election if it passes).

Which may demonstrate the wisdom of our founders in devising the College. I lean toward accepting Will's argument.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I believe it should be decided by the Popular Vote. I don't like the electoral college right now merely because I think you should have to have at least 50% of america liking you to get the win! (Well, the nader factor, maybe a lil less, but still yet!)

Well if it was a Popularity Vote Kerry would win, because he can change his image to be popular, but this is not the case. The Electoral College was done up for a reason, and a tie was a likely downside of the system, but still despite that the system has been proven to work and work well, and Colorado changing that is just going to cause problems, because something like that would be the same at the National level if we changed it to popular vote system. That being that only the most populus states and cities decide who should be the Nation's president, kind of unaffair for everybody else, having California, New York, Florida, and Texas decide who is President, that's just W...Wrong or that's just F...Fubar.

believe it should be decided by the Popular Vote. I don't like the electoral college right now merely because I think you should have to have at least 50% of america liking you to get the win!

What about the other half that voted for Bush, you can't forget the rest of the people simply because they did not vote for your candidate, and the problems in Florida was an example of that on both sides, next I will be hearing how the President was selected when he was elected, don't forget the votes of your opponent in your race and fervor to have your candidate elected.
That's W...Wrong, and it's just plain F...Fubar.

Remember the words of George Washington who said to "forswear excessive party spirit".

No no no. I like Bush. I wanted Bush to win, still do. But, I do think that you should have the popular vote to win.

I think that the majority of AMERICA should be able to decide. Usually the Electoral College works, but, sometimes it doesn't.

Did you by chance read that Will article, Catechumen? If not, please do & see if it influences your thinking at all. I'm sure you could Google to it. There are always valid points on either side of an argument, but I think he makes a good case for the EC.

One of the ancillary points he makes goes like this: Suppose Kerry actually wins Colorado by 5% of the vote - under existing law he would win all 9 electoral votes; if they pass this "popular vote allocation" bill, he'd get get only 5 for a net margin of 1, which might actually end up costing him the EC. If that were to happen, and he were to lose the EC vote by less than 4, I can just hear the outcry from the Dems - "If Kerry had just gotten all the Electors he was 'supposed' to, he'd be President."

Cheers,
Daiwa

Hmm. Good Point. There are sides to both. I believe in the Electoral College, I just believe if someone wins the NATION-WIDE popular vote by a HUGE number, then he should win the election.

But then again, there would be faults and outcries about that too, so let's just keep it the way it is.

Frankly the idea of an electoral college split is a frightening concept and I hope to God that we don't have to go through another similar period of doubt like we did with the last election. It's gets so confusing and it's horrible when the election is mired down in scandal. It sort of serves to make the president seem not quite as legitimate as he could be. It's a gross miscarriage of politcal power when the man that sits in the White House is not the man that was chosen by the electorate.

Although I have to admit the electoral tie scenario with Bush pres and Edwards VP sounds like a good idea for a fall sitcom.

I'm sorry MagikalBear, but the election wouldn't be "mired down in scandal" - it would just be proceeding as intended in the event of an Electoral College tie.

It's a gross miscarriage of politcal power when the man that sits in the White House is not the man that was chosen by the electorate.

Likewise, what happened in 2000 was NOT a gross miscarriage of political power - it played out the way it was supposed to under the Constitution. Your comments suggest you've not bothered to pay attention to the discussion here or read any of the referenced material and are just another one of the sore losers who's eyes have been crossed for nearly 4 years now.

Cheers,
Daiwa

But you're right about the sitcom - that would be a stitch.

Cheers,
Daiwa

It's a gross miscarriage of politcal power when the man that sits in the White House is not the man that was chosen by the electorate.

When has that happened?

I thought the Electoral College vote by their state, and even if it were a tie, representatives and senators would vote in the way their represented constituents would want them too.
After all an electoral tie can be solved reasonable by the officials the states elected or is that just plain unfair that you elected the Senator and Representative and he / she won't vote for your prized candidate Z because he / she is siding with the rest of your community who want Candidate X.

Popular vote would be contested as well, because we have problems with voter fraud and military soldiers not being able to vote.

ShoZan is correct. There is no method immune to manipulation in some fashion. For all the reprobation Nixon deservedly received for his Watergate idiocy, he was the last "loser" to put the country ahead of himself, graciously accept "defeat" and walk away, even though there was damn good reason to believe that Illinois was fraudulently delivered to Kennedy by the Daly machine in 1960.

Gore graciously accepting the outcome in 2000 and calling off his dogs would have been the statesman-like act that respect for our citizens would ordinarily dictate. His actions showed him for what he was, acting a spoiled rich kid. The whole focus on Florida was insulting to the rest of the country - as if the rest of us didn't matter to him.

Ah, but that's just my opinion. And before the dump truck arrives - in every recount in every contested county in Florida, Bush won.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I misspoke when I said that it's a miscarriage of politics when the man who failed to carry the electorate won the election. The common accepted defination for this use would term the electoral college as the electorate, and I, being idealistic, term the electorate as being the people who cast their ballots.

Your comments suggest you've not bothered to pay attention to the discussion here or read any of the referenced material

I read the entire discusstion and I followed it completely. I have been firmly against the Electoral college system when I first learned about it in 8th grade. I presume that the average American of average intelligence is reasonably capable of making the decision of who they want to have as President and Vice President. It seems to me that the Electoral College is a throw back to the former systerm of a select few making a decision for the rest of the country simply because it wasn't believed that the constintuancy (sp) was incapable of making such a large decision for themselves. I whole-heartedly agree that the Electoral College functioned exactly as it was intended by the Constitution, and I have no thoughts as to it being a miscarriage of justice. By the rules we agree to as our governing body, everything went by the book and I am still quite amazed with the efiicency with which the whole mess was sorted through with Constitutional law. However, that doesn't change the fundamental fact that Gore did win the popular vote.

Gore graciously accepting the outcome in 2000 and calling off his dogs would have been the statesman-like act that respect for our citizens would ordinarily dictate.

I completely agree. He acted like a spoiled brat. It was reasonable to request a recount, but he carried it way too far.

are just another one of the sore losers who's eyes have been crossed for nearly 4 years now.

The vast majority of the candidates I selected in that election won, and if they lost oh well. No bitter grapes here. Besides, I didn't vote for Gore for president. (I didn't even really want him to win. He's a whiney brat and is about as charasmatic as the desk holding up this computer.) During that election, I lived in Virginia... a heavily republican state. I knew that no matter what Bush would get my state, so I gave my vote to Nader to help fund his politcal party for the next election. So, all in all... knew my guy would lose anyways. So, not sore.. just wishing that when people go to the polls that the majority actually ruled that's all. Call me young, idealistic and foolish, but it's what I believe.

Colorado is ignoring the "sanctity" of minority rule; besides, if they continue to include the two senators in the electoral count, it will undercut the intent. The electoral college was formed to prevent "rabble rousers" from ruling the nation. Since, however, the Wyoming individual vote is propiortionately stronger than the voter from NY, guaranteeing minority rule.  

I read the entire discusstion and I followed it completely. I have been firmly against the Electoral college system when I first learned about it in 8th grade. I presume that the average American of average intelligence is reasonably capable of making the decision of who they want to have as President and Vice President. It seems to me that the Electoral College is a throw back to the former systerm of a select few making a decision for the rest of the country simply because it wasn't believed that the constintuancy (sp) was incapable of making such a large decision for themselves. I whole-heartedly agree that the Electoral College functioned exactly as it was intended by the Constitution, and I have no thoughts as to it being a miscarriage of justice. By the rules we agree to as our governing body, everything went by the book and I am still quite amazed with the efiicency with which the whole mess was sorted through with Constitutional law. However, that doesn't change the fundamental fact that Gore did win the popular vote.

The Electoral College was done up for a reason, and a tie was a likely downside of the system, but still despite that the system has been proven to work and work well, and Colorado changing that is just going to cause problems, because something like that would be the same at the National level if we changed it to popular vote system. That being that only the most populus states and cities decide who should be the Nation's president, kind of unaffair for everybody else, having California, New York, Florida, and Texas decide who is President, that's just W...Wrong or that's just F...Fubar.

Electoral College gives fair weight and equality as much as possible to each state and to the entire state. Popular Vote System would make it even easier for someone to just go to a stop in just the big cities and win an election. That is W...Wrong, and F...F'ed Up.

You can hate it or not, but the Popular Vote System is not a solution but a system that would cause more problems than you try to fix.

Electoral College gives fair weight and equality as much as possible to each state and to the entire state. Popular Vote System would make it even easier for someone to just go to a stop in just the big cities and win an election. That is W...Wrong, and F...F'ed Up.

With the electoral college, it gives candididates to avoid the non swing states. And the electoral college doesn't cause the candidates to go to big cities, they do that anyways because it is based on the state results not the city results, and they can for example win the whole state of michigan by concentrating on the detroit metro area. Popular vote would give each person a fair and eqaul vote. And the electoral college doesn't make candidates do things for the small states. Who's visited alaska? Who cars about alaska's three votes?