This. It would be exactly like in 2000, the losers would make noise about the anachronistic and terrible electoral college which would quickly be forgotten by the next election cycle.
Karmic justice?
The GOP platform this year called for the preservation of the Electoral College.
So does the U.S. Constitution.
The coolest part is that Joe Biden has a shot at being President himself:
If the House deadlocks and Democrats maintain control of the Senate, Biden could be the President when all is said and done.
And again with the Washington Examiner! And a senior editorial writer, no less! Really bringing out the heavyweights, aren’t you?
Quibble - the Constitution allows for amendments. The GOPers, benefited from the Electoral College system in 2000 and want to preserve it unamended. If it bites them in the tail this time, they might reconsider.
Or they might not. However, as I love irony, what would be really funny is if the Dems fervently were defending the EC while the Pubs did an about face and started making noises about it being out of date and needed to be reformed or abolished. To make the picture perfect, I can think of several posters who I’d love to see defending the EC on the one hand and others calling for it to be abolished on the other. 
This is setting up to be a very amusing year so far, and I’m already laying in stocks of popcorn to watch all of the fun.
Planet Fox, of course.
Obviously they won’t do anything legally, like contesting the election. But I didn’t take that as the OP’s question. I took it as how the Republican party would respond as political entity. And I could see them at least pushing to the populace that Obama shouldn’t really be president, and perhaps supporting that proposition that all states award their electors to the winner of the popular vote. It would thus make this a bipartisan effort
If the popular vote and the electoral vote agree, they would do none of the above.
So, the reason you offer no opinion is because liberal hypocrisy?
Obviously Marley was engaging in hyperbole, but a pretty substantial percentage of the Republican insist that Barack Obama is not the legitimate President because they don’t think he’s a US citizen.
Only if you translate what I wrote into old Swahili. While standing on your head, spinning quarters and attempting to render The Battle Hymn of the Republic on a kazoo…
Even if we have a ‘split decision’ where Obama wins the election and the Presidency in the EC, despite losing the popular vote, I still think the EC is an abomination and should be done away with.
Back in the early days of baseball free agency, George Steinbrenner was vocal in his opposition to free agency. But because the free agency rules were the rules he was playing under, he made no bones about the fact that he was going to do his best to win under those rules, while they were the rules.
The same notion applies here. I think it’s abominable that we operate under a system where only a handful of states are in play, and the rest of us are effectively on the sidelines. If a Presidential candidate is able to sway 100,000 voters in California, it should benefit that candidate just as much as swaying 100,000 voters in Virginia or Colorado. But the EC rules are the rules of this election, and they should be honored for this election.
If the outcome of this election helps Republicans share my attitude that the EC should be done away with, then I will rejoice, and will anticipate a bipartisan push to amend the Constitution to determine the President by national popular vote. Preferably with a runoff if neither candidate wins a majority, in order to minimize the impact of Nader-style spoilers, but that may be more than one can reasonably hope for.
I disagree (I think the pros of the EC outweigh the cons, and I’m certainly opposed to a straight up popular vote as you seem to be indicating), but that’s probably for a different discussion. We’ve hashed and re-hashed this in GD before, and probably will again. I’m glad that you will stick to your guns wrt your stance on this though. I think many will be flip flopping on this issue if it turns out that Obama wins the election but Romney wins the popular vote (though I still don’t see that as a real possibility, despite Romney getting a bump from the debates so far).
Not necessarily. The voters in the 8 states that are being vigorously contested by both sides are being bombarded by a shitload of ads that the rest of us aren’t seeing - thank goodness for that, but my point still stands: they’re experiencing a different election than the rest of us.
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. At most, 9 states will determine the 2012 election.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).