This article expresses the worry that the storm could depress turnout in blue areas and thus hand Romney the popular vote while not affecting the electoral vote.
I’m not sure what the worry is about. If anything, it’s relieving that now there’s a really good reason why the results would be as they are. This also shows why the Electoral College can be a good thing. All the states get their electors even if turnout is abnormally low in a few of them.
Of course, if New York goes for Romney because NYC has low turnout, then there THAT would cast doubt on the election results.
If Romney wins the popular vote but Obama wins the EC, I expect Obama to serve his next term, but offer a public statement that it sucks that he won and Romney really SHOULD be President.
Clever, sicks; but if Obama gets 270+ EVs while losing the popular vote, that does not at all prove he would have lost the popular vote had he known from the beginning of the campaign that there was no more Electoral College. Axelrod and Plouffe are wizards, as they showed from 2006 forward, at using the rules as they are (rather than how one might wish them to be) to help their guy checkmate the opposition.
They won the nomination in 2008 while losing the popular vote. When Hillary Clinton still had a mathematical chance to win by getting superdelegates to support her, that was going to be her case for their support: she got more votes than Obama did.
But if the storm depresses turnout in blue areas, Obama doesn’t even have to defend his mandate. He lost the popular vote simply because of the storm.
Hillary’s argument was wrong for the same reasons **Sicks **argument is wrong: you can’t look back at a game played under different rules and determine who would have won if you switch up the rules. It’s like taking a football game and at the end declaring that whichever team advanced more yards is the real winner. That’s nice, but they would have played completely differently if that was the rule.
The states would get their electors if nobody voted at all. It’s an illustration of how the EC makes your vote almost worthless. But I wouldn’t take the column seriously. It’s just time-killing speculation.
The Democratic primary process doesn’t make for good comparisons to the general election, though.
Because if he has a mandate, then he can… something, and if he doesn’t have one then… something. So it matters if he can or can’t defend his mandate because … um.
You “expect”? I think you’re really terrible at this whole prediction thing. If Romney wins the popular vote but Obama wins the EC, I expect Obama to claim victory and not talk much if at all about the situation, except to reiterate that you shouldn’t hate the player, you should hate the game.
In a country this big though, there’s always bad weather or some other problem reducing turnout. It’s not inherently less democratic for the people of New York to vote on who New York will vote for than it is for people to vote directly.
A popular vote election will cause more controversies than the current system. A system where the rules are funny but produce clear winners is better than a system where the rules make sense but produce fiascos like national recounts or contested elections because New York and New Jersey lost a million votes and Obama lost by 500,000.
Which is why some states offer options like early voting. That makes much more sense than the Electoral College. In the long run I think it’s unlikely anything will happen to the EC even if Romney wins the popular vote and loses the vote that counts.
Sicks, that’s a great hypothetical question–but why not start a new thread for it? I’d love to get in on that but it seems off topic here and I think it might attract more interest if it had that hypothetical title.
Well, remember when Bush lost the popular vote, his speech about how he was humbled by his loss, and would govern accordingly, as he was a “minority” President? Neither do I.
The big population centers would become the new battleground states. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago – these are the voters who would have the most influence over picking the next president and that’s where the campaign would be fought.
Well, he kinda did. Then the planes hit the towers and the GOP was swept into the Senate and House in the midterms, and there was no looking back.
If Obama loses the popular vote, but then the Dems make huge gains in Congress in 2014, I’m sure he’ll run wild with whatever he can get through Congress.
Actually, Bush didn’t pass anything important through Congress that wasn’t pretty substantially bipartisan. The main legislative showdown was on tax cuts, which happened June 2001. The rest of his legislative accomplishments, NCLB, Medicare Part D, Patriot Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Campaign Reform Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, etc., did not require GOP majorities.
This is a reason (in additon to others such as detecting problems while there’s time to correct them, blunting the tactic of vote suppression via inadqueate polling venues, etc) why at least two weeks of early voting should be standard procedure. It may well be time for the Feds to impose a few minimum standards along these lines.
