Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

[Dowding]

I was reading today how a situation could arise whereby Bush wins the popular vote, but Gore is given the Presidency because of the Electoral college.

Is this correct, and would the Bush supporters accept this (since it is enshrined within the constitution and therefore set in stone)?

[Eagler]

It would upset many of us. It would raise suspicions for me.

Eagler

Bush 2000 !!

Do Your Duty ... VOTE!!

[Gunthr]

If that happened Dowding, I'll bet that it would be the LAST time it ever happened.

I'm told the "Electoral College" originated long ago, before we had effecient communication. Every voter could not travel to Washington on horseback or canoe to caste his vote, so all the individual votes went to the "Electoral College" for the state, telling them how to vote.

The number of Electoral College votes for each state were apportioned according to population, which could allow the wierd results that you describe. That is my understanding, anyway.

I believe there would be a lot of sentiment for a Constitional amendment if that were to happen.

[mietla]

From another thread
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Peter V:
Hrmm, what would you Republicans do if Bush won the election but the Electotal College apointed Gore president. They have the right to do so as was appointed by your founding fathers. Remember you live in a republic, not a democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes you are correct. The electoral college can nulify the elections at their whim (just like the OJ jury did). I believe though, that their vote does not stick automatically, but it must be approved by the States who apoointed the electors.


I would not be surprised if the Clintonites pulled this off. There is nothing they would not do, to hold on to power.

mietla

[/b]

[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 11-07-2000).]

[mietla]

 http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

[Mickey1992]

 

Originally posted by mietla:
Yes you are correct. The electoral college can nulify the elections at their whim (just like the OJ jury did). I believe though, that their vote does not stick automatically, but it must be approved by the States who apoointed the electors.

I would not be surprised if the Clintonites pulled this off. There is nothing they would not do, to hold on to power.

mietla

Good Job, mietla.  What a way to backup your argument.  You are comparing the fact that the United States legislature has been foolish not to previously abolish the electoral system, with the verdict handed down by the OJ jury?  Just where in the US are you from?

[mietla]

San Jose, CA

[Karnak]

It happened in 1876 and was overturned due to voter fraud.

It happened again in 1888 and stood.

Sisu
-Karnak

[1776]

This is an entirely pointless thread!!!

Why?

Bush by 10% ; Electorial college 340!!!

Believe it!!

[devildawg]

Whats even worse, I believe that slaves were counted as a third of a person to calculate college votes. One of the reasons for secession IIRC. This is a part of our government that needs to be rid of.

------------------
Retreat hell!! We're just attacking in another direction!

[Dowding]

Going on what you say, do you believe the constitution should be amended to avoid such a situation? If so, doesn't that make any pro-gun arguments regarding the preservation of the constitution null and void (especially if there was popular support for such a move)?

If you can draw a line, where do you draw it?

Genuine interest here.  

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-07-2000).]

[LJK Raubvogel]

If a majority of the citizens of this country select a candidate, their choice should not be negated by an antiquated and flawed system. The reasons for implementing the Electoral College are history, and it should pass into history also.

The Bill of Rights is a different situation from the Electoral College. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain unalienable rights. i.e. they can not be taken away, and belong to the people. Apples and oranges.....they're both fruit, but different.



------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Karnak]

LJK Raubvogel,
Actually it is not apples and oranges.  They are both Amendments.

The right to bear arms is the 2nd Amendment and the electoral college is the 12th Amendment.

Regardless of the out come of todays voting, the man who wins the electoaral college will be the next president.

If it is done in spite of the popular vote, then hopefully that will spark a drive to overturn the 12th Amendment.  That will come to late to have any effect on this election though.

In 1888 the loser won and it did not spawn a movement that got rid of the 12th Amendment.

We can only vote, and then wait and see.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 11-07-2000).]

[miko2d]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Going on what you say, do you believe the constitution should be amended to avoid such a situation? If so, doesn't that make any pro-gun arguments regarding the preservation of the constitution null and void (especially if there was popular support for such a move)?
If you can draw a line, where do you draw it?

 If you love your baby, do you deep-freese it to preserve it forever or do you raise it?
 The fact that we are protecting our constitution has nothing to do with our right to legally amend it. Pro-gun arguments you are referring to actually revolve around such an amendment - The Second.

miko

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
LJK Raubvogel,
Actually it is not apples and oranges.  They are both Amendments.
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 11-07-2000).]

I'm well aware that they are both amendments. However, the first 10 amendments are generally thought of as almost untouchable. IMHO it would take far more to repeal one of the first ten, than any other amendment. That's the analogy I was trying to create, guess it failed  



------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps