My hope would be that Bush would be a gentleman and step aside, since this would give the Republicans tons of ammunition while opposing Gore’s programs.
I can see Rush now: “Al Gore got LESS votes than George Bush! So the Republicans have the mandate of the American people!”. (Limburger has been quick to point out that Clinton has neve won a majority of ther popular vote).
I remember in 1960 Richard Nixon knew that there was NOT something kosher with the way Jack Kennedy won the election, but for the good of the country (and his career), he decided not to challenge the results.
But, what would you democrats do if the electors screwed Gore? Would you rebel against the overnment?
Uhhhh…exactly HOW would electors “screw” Gore or Bush? Our constitution spells out how our presidents are elected…if people don’t like it, then we have this handy tool called a constitutional amendment.The only thing anybody could “rebel” against is the constitution.Your premise just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense…
Let me clarify my post…I suppose people could be upset at the electors, but the “electors” are not the “government”…The electors are party regulars selected by the individual state political parties…
A civil war would entail that Bush voters would be so unhappy with this admittedly messed-up result that they would be willing to KILL other people because of it.
Shoot, this election is looking to have one of the lowest voter turnouts in history. Many people can’t even get worked up enough to vote–they certainly aren’t so taken with their respective candidates that they’re willing to kill because of them.
Would there be court challenges? Likely. I also think that will happen if Mel Carnahan wins the Missouri senatorial election. However, that’s a far cry from brother killing brother in a civil war.
You are right, the electors are NOT constitutionally bound to vote for their party’s candidate. But if you are a Democrat, and you are sent to the Electoral College by your state’s voters, in principal, if not in law, you ARE screwing those voters that voted for your party’s candidate. Let’s just say they won’t exactly get a tickertape parade home.
I was bringing up the “Civil War” question for purposes of debate, if there is any. I will admit that I was getting abit far fetched there.
No, I am not. By fighting the results of the election, Bush could come across as a sore loser. By accepting the results even if he wins the popular vote “for the good of the country”, he comes across as a true patriot.
In the meantime, for the next 4 years, every time the Republican congress has a fight with Gore, they can keep bringing up that their man REALLY “won” the election, and use that for good PR. And in 2004, Good Guy Bush could use this steam to win the election.
I think if Bush won the polls but lost the electoral votes, he would score more points by NOT trying to get the Democratic electors to vote for him.
The same by the way goes for Gore. I’m using Bush because he is leading in the polls.
Besides, both of these guys know the rules. That is why thet are focusing their campaigns on “Battleground States”.
No, if this happens, and it certainly could, then the Bushbabies & the Dittoheads will just have another reason to hate Gore.
You know, i do not support Bush, but I think he is an OK guy- just not the man I want to be President- altho we could do worse. And a lot of other Gore voters feel the same. But the Bushites have to rile up complete & utter hatred of Gore, they want folks to despise him, revile him, hate him. There is something sick about this, and dangerous. They did it to Clinton- now, Bill had some 'despising" coming for the lewinsky thing- but the Republican christian right wingers hated & despised Clinton before that. This hatred is what made me finally decide that GORE was the man I wanted to support- I could not support such hatred.
Look, it is OK to not want Gore as your President- to have reservations about his presidential skills- but this sick hatred has got to stop.
Well anybody (Dem or Rep) who would say that would be an idiot. There are “rules” to the election game…taking part in the game is a recognition that you will play by those “rules”…anybody who whines afterwards about the rules will seem like an idiot pure and simple…I think that there would be enough constitutional scholars on CNN et al pointing that out to the unwashed masses…
There “might” be a movement to eliminate the electoral college for future elections…that would be a legitimate issue to discuss for FUTURE elections, not the current cycle.
With the vote trading going on between Nader & Gore supporters, I think the time to address it would be now, or, preferably, back in '60. It’s an antiquated system & should be scrapped.
I have seen Al and George, and they make me wanna RALPH!
(Not an endorsement, only a bumpersticker)
Anyway – winner takes all is not in the constitution. These laws could be repealed by the states. Probably not in the next week though.
Without winner take all it is still possible for a lopsided victory, but we are still a union of states. I don’t think people who get too riled. No wars yet over Rhode Island getting as many senators as Cali.
"What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?
There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State’s electoral votes.
Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections. "
I may disagree with you on a lot of issues, but I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. If Bush wins the election, it will be interesting to see if any similar hatred spews forth from the opposite camp.
Maybe not a civil war, but maybe a lot of civil disobedience and protests.
Possibly some domestic terrorism, with fringe elements from either side (Right or Left) being equally capable of violence.
The Right could call it a “Moral Crusade To Rid The World Of Secular Humanists”, while the Left could have a “Progressive Reform Popular Movement” or whatever.
That’s funny. I feel the same way about Gore. I admit that I’m surrounded by Gore supporters, so may not hear all of the Gore bashing that republicans are doing, but well, no one has threatened to leave the country is Gore is elected.
If you want to see hatred, and I mean real, foaming at the mouth hatred, directed at Bush, try checking out TableTalk on Salon.
To make this marginally on topic- I doubt that any of the TT posters mentioned above would start a civil war. The other side has all the fire arms.
Tretiak: The new Field poll, as shown in Mondays paper, shows Gore= 224 EC votes, Bush 214 EC votes, and 100 undecided. But I agree in one thing- Florida is a very Key state- if Bush loses it, he is toast. Gore could win, if he lost Fla, but it would still hurt.
Bashere: oddly enuf I have heard no HATRED of Bush. A LOT of Bush-bashing- ridiculing, poking fun at his “dumbness”, etc, yes- but not of the vitrolic hatred i have seen directed at Gore.
Finally, we get two cand, who, if not perfect, are both qualified to lead this country*- and there is still so much hate.
yeah, i know W is no rocket scientist, but his dad will make sure he has got real smart advisors.
Is this a concession?
I don’t see how Bush supporters could even begin to support a civil war over the electoral college. Bush’s big thing with the courts is all about apointing “strict constructionists.” It is hard to support the letter of the law, and then complain when your loses under the rules. If there was evidence of signifigant vote fraud, then this could change the way people react.
Of course, even though I don’t see civil war if Gore was elected after losing the popular vote, there would be a little trouble when he started confiscating the guns:)
All in all it’s a good thing for us that Bush’s 7% margin over Gore will squash any electoral mischief.
