If Gore had won New Hampshire

[Akno21]

If Gore had won New Hampshire, he would have had had 270 electoral votes, in theory. Would the DC voter still have not voted in protest, meaning that Gore won only 269 EV's, instead of the 270 he needed?

[dazzleman]

Probably not.  I can't believe that an elector from such a heavily Democratic (and dysfunctional) city would have handed the election to the House of Representatives, which would probably have selected Bush given its Republican majority (and I think Republicans would have a majority of more state caucuses than Democrats).

While I support the electoral college, I think that electoral votes should automatically be allocated to the state's winner, rather than allowing individual electors to potentially stray.  This would be a bad situation for both parties, no matter whether the faithless elector was a Democrat or a Republican.

[MHS2002]

Gore had 266 EVs. including the protest. If NH went Democrat, Gore would received 270 EVs. It wouldn't have mattered if the DC elector protested or not.

[dazzleman]

Gore had 266 EVs. including the protest. If NH went Democrat, Gore would received 270 EVs. It wouldn't have mattered if the DC elector protested or not.

You are correct.  He would have had either 270 or 271 electoral votes if he had won New Hampshire.

[Akno21]

Gore had 266 EVs. including the protest. If NH went Democrat, Gore would received 270 EVs. It wouldn't have mattered if the DC elector protested or not.

I feel dumb. Fine, say he won Montana. (That had 3, right?)

[tinman64]

Besides DC, DE, and VT, I don't think Gore stood a chance in any other state with 3 EVs.  Alaska, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and Wyoming went heavily to Bush.

[Gabu]

Besides DC, DE, and VT, I don't think Gore stood a chance in any other state with 3 EVs.  Alaska, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and Wyoming went heavily to Bush.

The idea of Montana going for Gore was just to make it so that Gore would have had 269 had the DC elector still chosen to cast a blank ballot.  He's not saying it might have happened.

At any rate, I doubt it.  I think (or at least would hope) that that elector would have valued validating who the people voted for more than making a protest that was mostly ignored anyway.

[Andrew]

Let's say that Gore had won New Hampshire but lost ME-2.  That's a realistic scenario that gets him to 270.  Remember that Barbara Lett-Simmons was protesting DC's "colonial status"--that is, their lack of voting representation in the Congress.  Casting a blank ballot to send the election to the House would have been a way to actually get her protest noticed by the general public.  I think she might have done it.

I doubt it--she is a Democrat, and sending the election to the House would have cost Gore the election, but I think it's a possibility.

[Akno21]

Let's say that Gore had won New Hampshire but lost ME-2.  That's a realistic scenario that gets him to 270.  Remember that Barbara Lett-Simmons was protesting DC's "colonial status"--that is, their lack of voting representation in the Congress.  Casting a blank ballot to send the election to the House would have been a way to actually get her protest noticed by the general public.  I think she might have done it.

I doubt it--she is a Democrat, and sending the election to the House would have cost Gore the election, but I think it's a possibility.

If she had done that, I fear for her life, although Karl Rove would probably hire 4 Secret service agents to accompany her arround for the rest of her life.

Yay, my 1000th post!

[© Tweed the Younger]

While I support the electoral college, I think that electoral votes should automatically be allocated to the state's winner, rather than allowing individual electors to potentially stray.  This would be a bad situation for both parties, no matter whether the faithless elector was a Democrat or a Republican.

Agreed.  I dislike the eV and that is one of the main reasons.

They should be called 'regional points' instead.

[ilikeverin]

Actually, I believe that (the 'Montana scenario') would make the elector want to abstain even more.  That way her protest would have recieved waaaaaay more attention, as she would have gone down in history as 'The Woman Who Cost Al Gore the Election!' and would invariably have a sentence in her little mention saying why she did it

Make sense?

[Andrew]

Before she abstained, she had been publicly speculating that she might do so.  She told Newsday and the Washington Post that she would not abstain if she thought Gore needed her vote to win:  "I would never do anything that would cause George Bush to have the presidency."

http://slate.msn.com/id/1006533/