We saw his strategy in the primaries. He’s in it to win, and he’s going to work the rules as far to his advantage as possible. Hillary got huge numbers, but Obama got more delegates. He knew that was what really mattered.
You see the same strategy in his national campaign. His campaign managers routinely dismiss national polls as being useless and are focusing all their efforts on battleground states. McCain’s campaign is really happy lately at how his national numbers look, and Obama’s people insist that their people on the ground in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are the ones who are going to win it. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com is putting the chances of this scenario happening at 9.7%. Pretty high, IMO, but not completely unreasonable.
So, how do you react? Eight years of bitching about Bush getting elected despite losing the popular vote, and suddenly the most popular candidate this board will ever see wins under the same circumstances.
I react the sane way: It doesn’t matter what the popular vote is, because we don’t elect our presidents that way. And they don’t campaign in order to win the popular vote. If we did elect our presidents by the popular vote, they would campaign differently, and so we don’t know what the popular vote would be in that case. It’s a useless, meaningless exercise to get all worked up about the popular vote.
Aslo, remember that the 2000 election was more than just a time when the president didn’t win the popular vote— it was an election that got thrown into the SCOTUS.
I would fall on my knees and rejoice screaming hosannas and thanks and vows of service to any god/dess within earshot. This is my absolute dream- payback for 2000.
OTOH, if he wins the popular vote and loses the election I fear riots. Not kidding- you’ll have a whole lot of people feeling disenfranchised.
I don’t think it’ll be the Civil War again, but I do know some people who will get plenty riled.
Also, what John Mace said (I’m saying that a distressing amount lately). People would campaign differently and vote differently without the electoral college.
You’re right. And they would be a bunch of rabble who couldn’t spell “Electoral College” let alone explain the concept. If people want to participate in the political process, they need to take responsibility to educate themselves and make an informed decision.
This is misleading and only partly accurate. Obama’s team won on strategy because they were better organized, which showed particularly in the caucus states. Hillary got “huge numbers,” but all things considered, Obama’s people got about the same number of votes and possibly more. It’s mostly Clinton supporters who have argued they got more votes.
I’d love to see Obama win by any way that the rules allow. But I also hate the Electoral College. So an Obama victory through the EC but not the popular vote could bring about two good outcomes, as far as I’m concerned - a Democratic victory, and a democratic victory, since public opinion will clamor for electoral reform, and more and more states will join the national popular vote movement.
Also, it’d be fun to watch millions of people make hypocrites out of themselves, be they Republicans suddenly upset with the rules now that the process would have gone against their party, or Democrats who forgot that the problem in 2000 was that more people in Florida intended to vote for Gore, and that was supposedly their real complaint, not that there were 500,000 more people who voted for him nationwide.
Even in the event this happens - I think Obama will win outright - the electoral college is not going to be eliminated. The first political conclusion I ever came to was “the electoral college is stupid,” but there’s no movement to get rid of it: it’s a very non-immediate, relatively complex issue and it just doesn’t grab people’s interest. Not compared to things like abortion. There was no major effort to eliminate the EC in 2000, which was the first time in forever it was even relevant. People were more focused on the electoral irregularities in Florida, and nothing got done about THOSE either! Electoral reform, voting procedures, butterfly or paper ballots, exclusion of voters… these things just do not generate sustained interest. You figured out a big part of the reason, too: if the EC decides an election, one party’s going to say it’s a great idea, which means about half the people will support it. If they flip flop on it eight years later, that’s life.
For just the humor value, I’d love it if the exit polls and actual results end up wildly different. (Although, all things considered, it’d be more likely to be against Obama in the “real” count… Still, that would still be interesting, inasmuch as I’d be interested to hear the explanation from the conservative side if that happened…)
The fact remains, however, that it’s exceedingly likely the popular vote and electoral college, under current conditions, will agree. 2000 is the only recent example, and that required some legal monkeying.
Obama’s people can SAY all they want that their organization on the ground will win in hte battleground states - an amazing thing when I’d been hearing about this 50-State Strategy, but I guess you can base your hopes on whatever you want to - but I’ll still plunk down $50 with anyone who wants to that the winner of the popular vote will win the EC, whichever candidate it is.
No argument, but it’s going to be very ugly just the same.
FTR, I firmly believe the EC needs to be done away with, and I can’t even remember how many times it’s been proposed (dozens at least), but I also completely accept its current legality in spite of who wins the popular vote. My big problem with 2000 wasn’t the EC so much as the belief with massive tons of evidence that Gore won Florida. IF the Republicans lose the electoral/win the popular vote, the best thing that will come of it is the thing will finally be done away with as the vestigial organ of a pre-electronic time that it is.
Says the guy from New York. Those of us in smaller states thinks it makes perfect sense. Not speaking for everybody, of course, but it gives us a bit more say in things than we’d get if we went on a purely popular vote.
We only need a dozen or so more states to agree, though, since four states - Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey - have already passed laws saying that they’ll allocate their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote, as soon as enough states (220 more electoral votes) pass the same law. Since each state is free to do what it wants with its electors, essentially, we don’t have to have an amendment to the Constitution to decide anything, which obviously makes the EC’s abolition much easier to accomplish.
None of these states had this law before 2000. If the Electoral College is in the news again, it won’t be good news for its continuation.
(Hendrik Hertzberg’s been keeping track of it all here.)
I was just about to say the same thing . . . I like the electoral college and support it. Never liked Bush but always thought it was dumb and bitchy to say he didn’t win in 2000 just because he didn’t get the popular vote. The most liberal professor I ever had in college was a published poli-sci PhD who hated Bush but fully agreed that he won the 2000 election. That’s a maturity I don’t often see from people who know far less about the situation than him. I’d hate to see Obama win that way because watching all the die hard lefties immediately change their position on the issue would make me cringe.
(Although, all things considered, it’d be more likely to be against Obama in the “real” count… Still, that would still be interesting, inasmuch as I’d be interested to hear the explanation from the conservative side if that happened…)