what if this is elections' scenario

[opebo]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

[Gustaf]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

[Emsworth]

So, if a magic bomb exploded, and the fragments homed and killed:

GWB
Richard Cheney
Dennis Hastert
Ted Stevens
Colin Powell
John Snow
Donald H. Rumsfeld
&
John Ashcroft

Then we could have a female President and Vice-President

The thought of Gale Norton as President makes me shudder.

[opebo]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

[Gustaf]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

Oh, but how would he do that? I mean, refuse to step down or what? I remember Bush said something like he would demand that the electors would vote for him if he won the PV but lost the EV. BEFORE the election, of course...

[opebo]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

Oh, but how would he do that? I mean, refuse to step down or what? I remember Bush said something like he would demand that the electors would vote for him if he won the PV but lost the EV. BEFORE the election, of course...

Yeah, just say 'they're breaking the public trust' or something like that, and not step down.  I suppose he could get some sort of validation through congress or the supreme court.

[Gustaf]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

Oh, but how would he do that? I mean, refuse to step down or what? I remember Bush said something like he would demand that the electors would vote for him if he won the PV but lost the EV. BEFORE the election, of course...

Yeah, just say 'they're breaking the public trust' or something like that, and not step down.  I suppose he could get some sort of validation through congress or the supreme court.

He would be breaking the constitution though.

[opebo]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

Oh, but how would he do that? I mean, refuse to step down or what? I remember Bush said something like he would demand that the electors would vote for him if he won the PV but lost the EV. BEFORE the election, of course...

Yeah, just say 'they're breaking the public trust' or something like that, and not step down.  I suppose he could get some sort of validation through congress or the supreme court.

He would be breaking the constitution though.

I wonder what would happen.. you know, something like 98% of army officers are GOP.. 65% of enlisted men (though less commited).. and a solid majority of police officers..

[Gustaf]

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If the changed vote is to the candidate that would have won in the House (Republican presumably) it won't be viewed as a big deal. In fact the elector may be a sort of hero for saving the House from voting.

However, if it's a vote change that changes the outcome and it cuts against the GOP we will never hear the end of it. Republicans don't take losing well.

You're right.  I think this scenario would be one of the few where you might see something like a defacto coup.

You mean, like a civil war or something?

No I mean like Bush might conceivably refuse to accept the validity of an elector or two switching to Kerry.  

Oh, but how would he do that? I mean, refuse to step down or what? I remember Bush said something like he would demand that the electors would vote for him if he won the PV but lost the EV. BEFORE the election, of course...

Yeah, just say 'they're breaking the public trust' or something like that, and not step down.  I suppose he could get some sort of validation through congress or the supreme court.

He would be breaking the constitution though.

I wonder what would happen.. you know, something like 98% of army officers are GOP.. 65% of enlisted men (though less commited).. and a solid majority of police officers..

I figured you'd get to that at some point...but you know what they say of conservatives, 'Too chicken to fight, too fat to run' When the mobs of poor workers come out into the streets shouting the slogans of the French Revolution, then you'd tremble...

Seriously, I think that a lot of Republicans would dislike messing with the constitution like that. Someone on this forum once states that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that the latter believed in the silly following the spirit of the law, whereas conservatives followed it ti the letter. Also, whoever acts always loses support. Bush would have to do stuff, whereas Kerry would just have to play by the rules to get the presidency.

[Reaganfan]

What if:
Election night....In a race that beats the 2000 nuthouse the presidential elections will go to the house.
all network predictions are 269-269 tie:



final result:
Kerry - 48.762%
Bush - 48.761%
Nader - 2.00%
all others - 0.477%

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If Bush wins all of the states he did in 2000, plus Minnesota, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, he has a partial landslide. Don't rule out California either. Can the Govenator pull that state for Bush/Cheney. I hope Kerry picks Richardson.

[Gustaf]

What if:
Election night....In a race that beats the 2000 nuthouse the presidential elections will go to the house.
all network predictions are 269-269 tie:



final result:
Kerry - 48.762%
Bush - 48.761%
Nader - 2.00%
all others - 0.477%

everybody preperd for the house, BUT On on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December one elector - does not matter which party - votes for the other guy. 270-268

what is America reaction

If Bush wins all of the states he did in 2000, plus Minnesota, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, he has a partial landslide. Don't rule out California either. Can the Govenator pull that state for Bush/Cheney. I hope Kerry picks Richardson.

The relevance to this thread being...?

[7,052,770]

hmmm, Texas has 17 dems and 15 gop representatives by my calculations . . .

[angus]

hmmm, Texas has 17 dems and 15 gop representatives by my calculations . . .

16 each, as of about 2 months ago.

[© tweed]

hmmm, Texas has 17 dems and 15 gop representatives by my calculations . . .

16 each, as of about 2 months ago.

Ralph Moody Hall.

[dunn]

If it is a Democrat shifting, riots in DC.

If it is a Republican changing, riots in Houston.

People would not be happy at all, and a new election would be called for-and no matter who the beneficiary was, I would support it (Especially if it went to Bush, though, for two reasons: 1. I'm a Democrat. 2. In the scenario Kerry won the popular vote. As I said, UI would still campaign for a new election even if it did favor Kerry though).

The bottom line is that this scenario would constitute the *legal* result. In two elections where the pop loser won the ec, there was a question as to who really won (1876&2000); however, if the election is legitimate, the legal winner is the ec winner, pop vote notwithstanding. So, this scenario would mean that there was a legal winner. To call for a new election would be to ignore the law.

Having said that, I think that the electoral college is not a good system as is. Ten percent the pop winner loses. That is not a good result. The fact that there are 'faithless' electors is but another reason to fix the electoral college.

The electoral college would be a good backup if nobody won a majority of the popular vote. Actually, under that kind of a system Bush would still have won the election (assuming he won FL).

Changing the system leads to the problem of the person who wins the popular vote winning a plurality rather than a majority.
The person who win 50%+ should be president, but what if in a three way race someone wins a 35% plurality. Should that person be president? I don't see why. One answer to that problem is to have a runnoff.

The EV should stay but with numbers not real electors who can be faithless

[dunn]

If it is a Democrat shifting, riots in DC.

If it is a Republican changing, riots in Houston.

People would not be happy at all, and a new election would be called for-and no matter who the beneficiary was, I would support it (Especially if it went to Bush, though, for two reasons: 1. I'm a Democrat. 2. In the scenario Kerry won the popular vote. As I said, UI would still campaign for a new election even if it did favor Kerry though).

The bottom line is that this scenario would constitute the *legal* result. In two elections where the pop loser won the ec, there was a question as to who really won (1876&2000); however, if the election is legitimate, the legal winner is the ec winner, pop vote notwithstanding. So, this scenario would mean that there was a legal winner. To call for a new election would be to ignore the law.

Having said that, I think that the electoral college is not a good system as is. Ten percent the pop winner loses. That is not a good result. The fact that there are 'faithless' electors is but another reason to fix the electoral college.

The electoral college would be a good backup if nobody won a majority of the popular vote. Actually, under that kind of a system Bush would still have won the election (assuming he won FL).

Changing the system leads to the problem of the person who wins the popular vote winning a plurality rather than a majority.
The person who win 50%+ should be president, but what if in a three way race someone wins a 35% plurality. Should that person be president? I don't see why. One answer to that problem is to have a runnoff.

The EV should stay but with numbers not real electors who can be faithless

That *would* certainly be an improvement. But what if there was a three way race and nobody won a majority? It would go to Congress. In such a scenario real electors could vote for one of the top two.

The top three goes to the house and the house with every state=1 vote decides

[classical liberal]

Or we could have actual runoff elections.

[ilikeverin]

So, if a magic bomb exploded, and the fragments homed and killed:

GWB
Richard Cheney
Dennis Hastert
Ted Stevens
Colin Powell
John Snow
Donald H. Rumsfeld
&
John Ashcroft

Then we could have a female President and Vice-President

Actually then we'd have a Female President and she would be able to pick her Vice President. There is no corresponding list for Vice Presidents. For example if Dick Cheney has a heart attack and dies, then Dennis Hastert does NOT become the vice president. Bush gets to pick one and has to get Congress to agree. When Spiro Agnew resigned, Nixon got Ford to be accepted by Congress as VP. Then when Nixon resigned Ford become Pres. and then he went to Congress and made Rockefeller VP.

Well, close enough