If Kerry wins the EV but not the popular vote...

[afleitch]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

Republicans would have griped endlessly about this it had happened to them in 2000...you would hear about it on every conservative talk radio show everyday for four years, terrorism or not.

But they can't really gripe about it if it happens in 2004.

I'm amazed there wasn't more effort to change the system after 2000.  Probably due to the fact that the electoral college problem was overshadowed by the vote-counting problems and all the court action.  If it happens in 2004, I think there will be more momentum to change things, but not enough to actually do it.

[King]

What we should is work EVs like we do delegates in the Democratic Primaries. Instead of winner takes all, we divide in proportions. Of course this will also cause some 3rd party candidates to recieve electorals, but hopefully not enough to bring it to the house.

[The Vorlon]

What we should is work EVs like we do delegates in the Democratic Primaries. Instead of winner takes all, we divide in proportions. Of course this will also cause some 3rd party candidates to recieve electorals, but hopefully not enough to bring it to the house.

The chances of enough big states giving up "Winner take all" in the EC is just about Zero.

I may be slightly wrong on this, But if, for example Pennslyvania went to 2 EVs for the state winner + 1 per Congressional district, I think Gore would have won Pennsylvania 13-10 in 2000 (Is that right?) - making Pennsylvania the exact same NET importance as say Wyoming.

Profoundly unlikely IMHO

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1) The Electoral Vote process will not be changed regardless of how many times the popular vote results gives different results.
2) Winner take all is determined at the state level per the US Constitution.  This also will not be changed.  So I am not going to bother listening to non-Texans complain about the winner-take-all system.  Go whine to your own state representatives.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

Why do you care about the way the US picks its leaders, you're not even American?

[Spin Police]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

And to be fair, will all the Democrats who have for 4 years said Bush was not legitimate by virtue of losing the popular vote, stay consistent and declare Kerry illegitimate under this scenario?

Odds of GOP NOT griping : ZERO
Odds of Democrats being consistent : ZERO

 

[classical liberal]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

Why do you care about the way the US picks its leaders, you're not even American?

Because it's an interesting scenario that was probably just boouncing about in his head.

Besides, we're not going there; it's off-topic and rather ignorant.  If you'd rather have no Europeans in this forum please keep that opinion to yourself.

[© Tweed the Younger]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

Why do you care about the way the US picks its leaders, you're not even American?

...here we go again

[Sibboleth]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

Why do you care about the way the US picks its leaders, you're not even American?

...here we go again

Oh...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why do you care about the way the US picks its leaders, you're not even American?

Because it's an interesting scenario that was probably just boouncing about in his head.

Besides, we're not going there; it's off-topic and rather ignorant.  If you'd rather have no Europeans in this forum please keep that opinion to yourself.

'
Agreed.  Since he wasn't advocating a change to our electoral process, my comment was out of line.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...here we go again

Oh...

Let's table the xenophobic/busybody debate.  

[Giant Saguaro]

No, I won't gripe about it. I don't like to make up rules as I go or try to change them after I lost to show how I should have won. I don't play ball that way. I want Bush to win a clear victory and if he can't and there's something like this, then he doesn't deserve it.

Now if it's a repeat and Kerry wins the PV and loses the EV, I expect the same attitude from the Dems.

Because of the nature of how things are in the US, I don't see Bush losing this way. If he does, I'll accept it. There are more people in the places where Kerry will do well; if it's close like 2000, you can't make up for getting completely blown out in NY and CA and IL, for example. Those are just 3 states. Sure, Bush can blow out Kerry in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, some states in the southeast, but they don't add up as much. So it's way more unlikely than Kerry winning the PV and losing the EC, imo.

[angus]

If Kerry 'does a Bush' and wins the Electoral College despite loosing the popular vote, will there be more demand for a change in the rules? And if this voting anomaly happens, will Republicans out there promise not to gripe about it!

oh, I'm backing out of my earlier promise already, just thinking about it.  This country hasn't seen a good old-fashioned military Junta for a hundred and forty years.  Maybe it's time for one.  I bet Bush's Military could kick Kerry's Militia.  What do you think?

[afleitch]

Thank you. Oh and the reason why I have an interest is because i'm a student of American Politics in university! and it's a topic we have covered many times. But just to say, in 1951, Labour won the most votes in the General Election but not the most seats, so didn't get to form the government. And in 1974, I think, the Conservatives won the most votes, but not the seats. So our system can also produce the same results, and it's not been changed. Currently the Conservatives are ahead in many polls, yet if they were translated into seats, Labour would still gain a comfortable majority. That's politics for you!

[angus]

That's very interesting afleitch.  I hadn't thought of an analogous situation in a constutional monarchy or a democracy, but there you go.  Seems like the Republic doesn't hold the patent on dissatisfied electorates.

since you're a serious scholar you deserve a serious answer.  The Republicans may grumble a bit, just like the Gore people did last time, but in the end everyone who is educated enough to bother to vote is also educated enough to have some familiarity with the US constitution.  We'd all get over it, I think.  Life goes on, and I can think of at least a hundred things that are more important to me than who is the next president.

[Sibboleth]

Thank you. Oh and the reason why I have an interest is because i'm a student of American Politics in university! and it's a topic we have covered many times. But just to say, in 1951, Labour won the most votes in the General Election but not the most seats, so didn't get to form the government. And in 1974, I think, the Conservatives won the most votes, but not the seats. So our system can also produce the same results, and it's not been changed. Currently the Conservatives are ahead in many polls, yet if they were translated into seats, Labour would still gain a comfortable majority. That's politics for you!

Only in the dodgy polls
Which in the U.K means most of 'em...

[afleitch]

Quite right VP Al. I don't trust any poll from 'Anything You want Guv' (YouGov)