To Naso and others - a question.

[afleitch]

What is the world reaction if Obama wins the national popular vote by 3-5 million...but narrowly loses Virginia, Colorado and Ohio which give McCain a 273 electoral vote victory?

Is this what you want? Do you value 'your man' over national confidence in the electoral system and the president and have a drawn out legal challenge? Or would you rather 'the other man' win the PV and win the EV and then buckle down and get on with the job.

[MODU]

What is the world reaction if Obama wins the national popular vote by 3-5 million...but narrowly loses Virginia, Colorado and Ohio which give McCain a 273 electoral vote victory?

Is this what you want? Do you value 'your man' over national confidence in the electoral system and the president and have a drawn out legal challenge? Or would you rather 'the other man' win the PV and win the EV and then buckle down and get on with the job.

PV's are irrelevant on the national level.  In our election procedure, the Electoral College determines the winner.  So, even if someone receives the most PV's, it is the person with the EV's that win.  The loser, in turn, should bow out and accept his/her defeat and let the winner "buckle down and get on with the job."  Now, if there is/are a case(s) where mandatory recounts occur due to the tightness of the race, then the states should be allowed to do their recounts without the political parties trying to get involve and dictate how the recounts should be done. 

[ChrisFromNJ]

To Naso - it is party before country.

[afleitch]

What is the world reaction if Obama wins the national popular vote by 3-5 million...but narrowly loses Virginia, Colorado and Ohio which give McCain a 273 electoral vote victory?

Is this what you want? Do you value 'your man' over national confidence in the electoral system and the president and have a drawn out legal challenge? Or would you rather 'the other man' win the PV and win the EV and then buckle down and get on with the job.

PV's are irrelevant on the national level.  In our election procedure, the Electoral College determines the winner.  So, even if someone receives the most PV's, it is the person with the EV's that win.  The loser, in turn, should bow out and accept his/her defeat and let the winner "buckle down and get on with the job."  Now, if there is/are a case(s) where mandatory recounts occur due to the tightness of the race, then the states should be allowed to do their recounts without the political parties trying to get involve and dictate how the recounts should be done. 

That's not the question I was asking - I am aware of the system. What I was asking is - is it good for the country to have a 2000 style race again? Is that how you want your candidate to win? Because for some posters that is the scenario which seems to stir hope. Not one involving your candidate actually winning the popular vote through merit and hard work.

[J. J.]

I like the electoral college and I would agree that the winner of the electoral college is the president.

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

What is the world reaction if Obama wins the national popular vote by 3-5 million...but narrowly loses Virginia, Colorado and Ohio which give McCain a 273 electoral vote victory?

Is this what you want?

obviously, anyone would want their candidate to win both the PV and EV.  But it is better to win the EV and lose the PV than it is to lose the EV and win the PV...obviously.

I don't understand where your question is trying to go.

[MODU]

That's not the question I was asking - I am aware of the system. What I was asking is - is it good for the country to have a 2000 style race again? Is that how you want your candidate to win? Because for some posters that is the scenario which seems to stir hope. Not one involving your candidate actually winning the popular vote through merit and hard work.

I would say yes.  Unless we have a Constitutional Convention to change the system, it is the legal process of the land.  The problem in 2000 was the parties were interfering with the rules that were already in place.  If they had left the states alone to do the recounts according to their laws, you wouldn't have had the chaos that the Democratic Party created.  The media learned their lesson from calling close elections too early.  Did the political parties learn their lessons by letting the established procedures play out before they attempt to game the system?  We'll have to wait and see.

[davajuan]

I like the electoral college and I would agree that the winner of the electoral college is the president.

Absolutely agree. If Obama gets 270 and loses by 3 points, you will not hear a peep out of me.

Ever since I played a board game called Landslide in 1982-ish as a young boy, I have loved the EC system.

[Reaganfan]

I like the electoral college and I would agree that the winner of the electoral college is the president.

[Smid]

I like the electoral college and I would agree that the winner of the electoral college is the president.

Absolutely agree. If Obama gets 270 and loses by 3 points, you will not hear a peep out of me.

Ever since I played a board game called Landslide in 1982-ish as a young boy, I have loved the EC system.

Exactly. It goes both ways. The issue is not one of whether the race was "stolen" or whatever. The election is won according to the rules that have been written, which is the EC system. It's the same as a game of football. Usually the winning team will have had the ball the longest, or made the most ground in attack and the most tackles in defence, but not always. If that isn't the case, if a team lost even after having the best stats, it's not that the game was stolen from them - because the rules of the game are fair and aren't changed to hinder one team or help the other. Likewise, the party that usually wins the election the ECVs also won the PV, but not always.

An electoral system needs to be fair. It's possible for the Democrats to win in a 2000-style election, just as it's possible for the Republicans to win in that scenario. If Gore had won in 2000 but lost the PV, I wonder how many of the Democrats would have suggested that the election had been stolen...

For the record - it is also possible in Australia to form government with a majority of seats but with a minority of the vote. This has happened twice in elections I've been interested in during the past decade - 1998 and 2004. In the 1998 federal election, the Liberals retained Government, despite receiving less than half of the 2PP vote. In the 2004 Brisbane City Council election, the Liberals won the mayoralty but had a minority in the council despite the candidates for ward councillors achieving almost exactly the same vote as the mayoralty (except that the mayor was elected by PV). The Liberals won the PV but lost the council itself. You just live with it. The rules are set before the election and sometimes they benefit one side and sometimes they benefit the other. You just get on with it and don't gripe about the system just because it failed to deliver your party a win.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think you're all missing Andrew's point, perhaps the issue of the electoral college and memories of 2000 automatically sidetrack people.

[MODU]

I think you're all missing Andrew's point, perhaps the issue of the electoral college and memories of 2000 automatically sidetrack people.

No election process is perfect.  If a repeat of 2000 occurs, so what.  It shouldn't, since the parties should have learned their lesson from last time and not interfere with the individual state policies, but if it does, it's no big deal.  A winner will be announced and sworn in, and at that time, the losing party/supporters needs to get over themselves and get on with the business of the day, rather than sitting in their puddle of piss and cry like babies because they didn't get their way.

(Was that clear enough? )

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

I think you're all missing Andrew's point, perhaps the issue of the electoral college and memories of 2000 automatically sidetrack people.

perhaps his point wasn't clear at all.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I think you're all missing Andrew's point, perhaps the issue of the electoral college and memories of 2000 automatically sidetrack people.

No election process is perfect.  If a repeat of 2000 occurs, so what.  It shouldn't, since the parties should have learned their lesson from last time and not interfere with the individual state policies, but if it does, it's no big deal.  A winner will be announced and sworn in, and at that time, the losing party/supporters needs to get over themselves and get on with the business of the day, rather than sitting in their puddle of piss and cry like babies because they didn't get their way.

(Was that clear enough? )

Amen