Bush wins Electoral College, Gore wins Popular vote

Great Debates
1

It looks increasingly like this will happen, given Gore’s lead in the popular vote (with the only remaining precincts to report heavily for Gore) and the fact that most recounts in political history (though never in a presidential election) result with the tentative leader coming out ahead.

What do you think the implications will be? How receptive will the general public be to this schism? Exit polls show that voters believe the popular vote leader should become president, regardless of the E.C. Now, obviously, the Constitution says otherwise, but what kind of effect will this have on Bush’s ability to govern–particularly since the Senate is almost split even, and the Democrats gained seats in the House (though the GOP still has a slight majority)? How would Bush justify his right to advance an agenda that cannot reasonably be considered a mandate? What kind of gridlock might we anticipate in the legislative branch this next 2 years (if any)?

I’m pretty amazed at the corkscrew turn-of-events this evening. I believe in the Electoral College and would support Bush’s victory even if Gore wins the popular vote (and even though I voted for Gore), but this has been so close, I’m curious as to how the various parties involved will spin the final result.

Any opinions?

2

Like you, I would support Bush’s presidency if he wins the electoral college, regardless of the results of the popular vote (I voted for Gore). The election process is clearly spelled out in the constitution and I support that document more than any candidate or any party. Our election process has produced a clear victor in most cases for well over 200 years. I am not disposed to change it because of an odd turn of events every 100 years or so.

Eissclam

3

I think it will cause more support for the elimination of the Electoral College, which I have advocated (not as an obsession or anything) for over a decade.

I’m glad people will finally catch up with me. :wink:

4

Hey, you’ve got my vote. Why should a few thousand people in Florida have the final say in who gets elected to the presidency?

The strangest thing about the system is that if Bush winds up with only 271 unofficial electoral votes, he might still lose the election when the electors meet in December. IIRC, the electors are free to choose whoever they want, so it is conceivable that a couple of Bush’s electors might feel uncomfortable voting for a man who lost the popular vote, and cast their lot with Gore or someone else. It’s highly unlikely, but possible. If Bush falls below 270 electoral votes, it will go to the House of Representatives. Who knows what could happen then? At this point, nothing would surprise me.

5

Some electors are not free to change their minds – there are laws in many states that say they must vote the way the state voted. But, yes, some could change their minds. However, unless the Democrats have some deep-cover moles in the GOP, I really don’t think that’s gonna happen.

6

You’re right, some electors are bound by law to vote for their candidate. I just saw a pundit on CNN say the very same thing a few seconds ago. Man, this system is confusing.

7

24 states have laws stating that electors must vote as they pledged to vote. The remaining states don’t, but remember that electors are chosen from the party faithful, and usually as a reward for long years of service. In the history of U.S. elections, more than 99% of electors voted as they pledged.

8

I’d never heard that in some states electors are compelled by law to vote as pledged. That’s very interesting. What is the penalty for non-compliance? A fine? Jail time?

And if an elector did unlawfully vote against his pledge, would the vote be valid or not?

This reminds me of the GQ thread I began yesterday, which I wish had gotten more responses. There’s so much about the electoral college most Americans don’t know, because it hasn’t mattered in such a long time.

9

I think the significance of Gore winning the popular vote is that it gives more legitimacy to his challenge to the votes in Florida. If he choses to challenge in court the “irregularities” in the vote, it will be alot less unappealing if he is the man whom the majority of Americans cast their ballots for but lost on a “technicality”.

Regarding the question by Five, there have been electors in recent years who have cast their ballots for other candidates than those who they were elected to vote for. In 1968 an elector voted for Ronald Reagan. But I don’t know if anyone has ever voted for a candidate of a different party.

10

Well, the Electorial College’s FAQ (yes, it has one) says this:

So, that doesn’t exactly clear things up. In some states, apparently, votes for someone other than who won the popular vote in that state would be valid but the elector would be fined, while in others electors might be replaced if they failed to vote for popular vote winner of that state. The constiutionality of replacing electors has apparently never been decided, as there was never a need for the Supreme Court to rule on it.

11

As a preface, let me state that I think that an elector turning his back is highly unlikely in this election. I think it may be more likely in elections where one candidate wins by a large majority, as it doesn’t matter much then. But, I could be wrong. Does anyone have any data on when electors have changed their votes and what the election results were?

With respect to the legality of an elector going against his pledge, I feel fairly comfortable in guessing that this is something the Supreme Court hopes it never has to decide. All in all, when it comes to balance of power questions, the Supreme Court wisely recognizes that it does not want to become involved. The Supreme Court has no ability to enforce its mandates and is therefore powerful only to the extent of the consent of the governed. I would guess that they definitely do not want to be in the situation of determining whether an elector’s vote is valid, and thus determining the election.

Regardless of who wins the election, let’s just pray that the electors vote how they’re supposed to and spare the turmoil that would otherwise result.

12

It’ll never happen. It would require a Constitutional amendment, which would require approval of 2/3 of the states. Now why would the states who have extra voting power under the current system voluntarily give up that power?

13
  1. The primary recurring argument I hear for keeping the EC is that, in case of a close popular vote, we’ll at least have a definitive winner.

So much for that theory.

  1. IMO, the momentum for changing the EC will be less powerful with Gore winning the popular vote but losing the EC, than it would have been if Bush had won the popular vote, but lost on electoral votes.

The reason I believe this is that getting ‘mad as hell’ is far more a part of the Republican personality than it is of the Democrats’. (Don’t ask me why this is so, but it’s impossible to overlook.) If the recounts show that Bush won FL fair and square, but Gore still has a popular majority, the Democrats are a lot less likely than the Republicans would have been to be blowing their tops about a ‘stolen’ election.

If the FL result stands, the cause of changing the EC will be more prominent than it was six months ago, but I’ll lay odds that a Constitutional amendment to do anything about it won’t even get to a vote in Congress. If sides were reversed, I’d have been certain of such an amendment being voted on, and a well-crafted amendment might’ve even gone to the states.

14

If Bush hangs onto victory, I think that the paper-thin margin will have a moderating effect on his policies. Particularly when combined with the narrowing of the Republican majority in the Senate.

I believe (and fervently hope) that because of the narrow Senate margin, Bush will be less likely to appoint extremists to the judiciary, and to EPA and Department of Interior posts.

If I am mistaken, and Bush does appoint extremists, I can envision some truly nasty confirmation battles, and I can further envision the Republicans losing control of Congress in two years.

I think Bush’s best hope for eventual re-election would be to chart a moderate course. Here’s hoping that’s exactly what he does.

15

I can see the foreigners scratching their heads and saying: "Gore beats Bush by over 200K votes yet still loses?!

Ain’t that America, you and me…

First, forget Florida recount, recounts generally don’t change diddly and as more miltary and snow-bird absentee ballots are counted Bush’s lead will move towards 3,000.

Then again is the problem of miscounts and dumb mistakes, stupid voters, confusing ballots and outright fraud. Here we may be talking turkey and not just in Florida. But its often happens that these “mistakes” go both ways which is why election officials like to get things over with quickly. But if official voting documents start getting lost or destroyed by baby-Bush’s bureaucrats, well, welcome to the banana republic.

Talk about no mandate.

Democrats in Congress can rightly state that the American people rejected W and all his evil machinations. Thus all dem promises (tax cuts, school vouchers, education credits, social security reform) might not get through a Democratic-liberal GOP coalition.

As a matter of fact maybe not much at all will get done. :slight_smile:

Running the show of course will get W:

1)gays out of the military [a secret promise, don’t believe me? you just wait],

2)oil drilling in wilderness and coastal areas,

3)mothballing the EPA, allowing Detroit to add more pollution and less gasoline efficiency [thank you Ralph Nader],

4)increased military pay, build star wars, increase warehoused supplies, aka “readiness” [who’s the enemy?]

5)but get the U.S. out of the Balkans [let the 1,000 year blood feud renew - “don’t got no dog in that hunt” - sure hope Greece doesn’t invade Macedonia, Albania invade Kosovo, Serbs ally with Greece, Turkey intervenes and we’re back in 1914]

6)Lots of idle time to be the “education” President, the “high technology” President, the “compassionate conservative” President etc.

If history is a guide, Bush will be a one term President but heck that might have happened to twit-man if he had piled up a popular vote landslide.

Look for his handlers to have W say:

  1. He too opposes the electoral college but hey what can be done (He doesn’t mean it, the college has been berry berry good to the GOP over the last 150 years).

2)If there had been a direct popular vote for President, W would have won as he spent too much time in the swing states rather than in the major metro areas. (right)

  1. Now is the time for healing, for moving forward for all Americans (meaning that the Democrats are meanies at best for looking for irreularities in voting and - a GOP favorite - “traitors” at worst.

  2. If Gore doesn’t concede by 12:00AM Thursday then he’s continuing the sad divisiveness that charcterized the last 8 years. (W’s campaign theme in 2002 and 04. Unanimity in government worked well for the old USSR, and Reagan, Dads, and Newt were never divisive)

16

In a national election, why should state lines determine how the votes are distributed?

In my state of Kansas, Bush clearly won the popular vote, however, I would rather see the electoral votes be representative of the split instead the “all or none” scenario (I’m not a Gore supporter, BTW). A vote for a losing candidate dies at the state level. I think the dynamics of voting would change if minority voters (not refering to race) knew that their votes would still be represented in the EC. Who knows how this might bolster third parties as well?

17

This is how I remember it, but I saw on some website that it was in 1976. Sorry. Also, according to this website, in 1988 a Democratic elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen for President and Dukakis for VP.

18

One additional point that people seem to be overlooking is that the electoral college, apart from the winner-take-all aspect of it, also has the impact of giving more clout to the smaller states, as the amount of electors equals representatives+senators. Thus by winning five states with a combined population equal to that of California, and losing California, a candidate is ahead by 8 electoral votes (even if the wins and losses are by the same margin).

This factor likely provided the margin of victory to Bush, who won alot more states than Gore did.

For this reason there is likely to be insurmountable resistance to a constitutional reform of the electoral college, as the smaller states would be loath to give up this additional clout.

19

Two good reasons for keeping the EC:

1.) Logistically simpler. Right now states maintain all the infrastructure for running elections. If you went to direct election of the president you would need a federal election bureaucracy that would only get used once every four years. Imagine the nightmare of running a recount of a direct election, particularly when there would be no centralization of ballots.

2.) It discourages regionalism. With the EC there’s no benefit to winning more than 50% of a state, so candidates are forced to seek a broad base of support across the entire country. With a direct election a winning strategy would be to build an overwhelming majority in only one part of the country and ignore the rest. Or to focus all your energies on the two dozen largest metropolitan media markets.

The EC is not just a silly historical anachronism – it’s a strong bulwark against regional politics and disenfranchisement of rural and small town voters. Getting rid of it is a Very Bad Idea.

20

Reform…NOT abolishment!

As it stands, certain states are labeled as Rep. or Dem. by simple majority. That’s insane. A “Republican” voter in a “Democratic” state has no voice in a presidential election. Where’s the equity in that? A quick glance at CNN’s map gives a good idea of the regional support you described in your statement. Currently, candidates focus on the regions of each state required to win a simple majority, like metropolitan areas of high population. If that’s not regionalism, I don’t know what is.

I believe Nebraska awards the two senatorial based EC votes to the popular winner and divides the rest on percentages. I would be satisfied if that were the norm instead of the exception.