My big question is if there’s a civil war based around these two, how will anyone know which side to join? Talk about brother fighting brother…
Well, I’m surprised by this thread. I came in here looking for civil war, and all I get is civil discussion. Bah!
I say, whoever wins, however many votes he gets, we have a Civil War! At first I thought we should split east/west this time, instead of north/south, but that’s boring. Lets split by electoral college districts. District 2 and 3 against district 1! District 4 against the District in the adjoining state! Everyone against the one District that voted for Nader! With rousing battle cries like this, how can anyone resist?
Then we can ask the UN to send in some US peacekeeping troops…
While channel surfing I came across a debate about the EC on C-Span. One “pro” EC vote is this: In a popular vote election that is very close, there would probably end up being hundreds or thousands of vote recounts demanded in order to determine a winner. (each district or preceinct)…the end result being an undetermined Presidential winner for quite awhile…
The EC would eliminate that huge number of necessary recounts, states where there was a large popular vote difference would not have to undergo a recount…
The other argument (less convincing for me) is that the EC can work to give more of a “mandate” to the winner of a close popular vote winner…)
LAst night on town hall meeting with Ted koppel, Jesse Ventura said he hopes it works out that way, as he wants the voting to go back to popular vote, not electoral college.
Palandine said:
Why would there be court challenges? As others have noted, the Constitution spells it out. Where does the challenge come in?
Similarly, the rules governing the Missouri election are spelled out. If Carnahan wins, the Governor gets to appoint somebody in his place. I just don’t see where the court challenge comes in.
(Besides, wouldn’t it be embarrassing enough to lose to a dead man without making it even more public?! 
)
I’m not sure what I think about the EC. On the one hand, it seems anachronistic and it favors the big states (Cal., NY, Fla., etc.)–I haven’t seen a single Bush or Gore ad this political season (I’m in Connecticut). On the other hand, changing to a popular vote would favor the big population centers–the Northeast and all the big cities, leaving middle America and rural areas off the radar screen. This, of course, would strongly favor the Democrats. Just a couple of thoughts…
If it’s a close election, of course there will be vote challenges, allegations of fraud, demands for recounts, etc. And they would have to be handled on a precinct by precinct basis, which would take at least weeks. This is the major reason Nixon did not contest the Illinois vote count in 1960, even though pretty much everyone agreed there was some degree of voter fraud.
And not to spill oover from other threads and boards, but regarding the Missouri Senator’s race, there was a story yesterday that some Senate Republicans would like to refuse the seat to the Democrat appointee if the dead candidate should win. The grounds would be that the Senate has the right to judge the qualifications of its members, and the dead candidate was clearly unqualified to be elected.
Hey, the law’s the law, look it up!
The web site for the EC said that there have been over 700 attempts to reform or eliminate the EC. Onthe local portion of NPR this morning, they mentioned that Dick Durbin (Illinois senator) and a republican house member are introducing some sort of legislation to eliminate or reform the EC (I caught the tail end, so didnt get the legislative details)…
Voter fraud is probably the biggest reason I support the EC. It helps limit the damage corrupt parties in densely populated areas can do.
What the EC does is it forces the candidates to engage in a more national campaign. While California may have the most electoral votes, the candidates have spent little time here relative to it’s importance. Popular votes will tend to focus campaigning in densely populated areas where the message can reach the most people. This means much more campaigning on the east and west coasts.
I hope Bush wins, but if he only wins the popular vote and not the EC vote I won’t be asking for some sort of uprising.
By the way, this is worth noting again:
Even if Nixon had won Illinois, he would’ve lost the 1960 election. Mmmkay? So let’s keep that particular electoral legend on the Rush Limbaugh show, where it belongs.
Yes, the Missouri laws are spelled out, but the federal Constitution is different. and there’s the problem. The American Constitution says a senator must be a resident of the state and meet the qualifications to be Senator. Now, the name on the ballot is MEL Carnahan, not Jean. Therefore the questions are (1) can one still be a resident of the state while dead and (2) can a dead person meet the qualifications to be Senator?
This is what Ashcroft would base his case on. I think he would lose, but he does have a bit of a point.
Incidentally, I can’t STAND Ashcroft, and even though I’m not crazy about Democrats, I wouldn’t mind seeing him lose to a dead man. Bond’s an okay guy; Ashcroft is just mean, there’s no two ways about it.
Since I was the one who brought that up in the first place, I’d like to remind you that I didn’t say Nixon would have won. I was using it as an instance of how recounts could foul up the timing of the electoral process. Mmmkay?
Actually, kunilou, that wasn’t directed at you. theuglytruth said in his OP that “there was not something kosher with the way Jack Kennedy won the election.” It was that assertion–that whatever vote fraud there was had led to Kennedy winning the election–that I was challenging; it’s come up several times on the board over the past month or so.
In fact, I didn’t see your post, just Freedom’s response to it. My fault for not paying closer attention; I’m sorry I implicated you in the crossfire. 
The fact does remain, though, that Kennedy ran away with that election, and would have done so had he carried Illinois or not.
I’m sorry for sounding petulant. But IIRC, while the electoral vote in 1960 was something like 303-219 (with a few scattered unhappy Southern electors thrown in), didn’t Kennedy win a couple of states – maybe Ohio and Mississippi, I don’t have any reference books here – by something like a combined total of 15,000 votes? Certainly close enough for Nixon to ask for a recount, whether or not there were allegations of fraud. With all three of those states in play, that certainly would have shifted enough electoral votes to change the outcome. And that certainly would have played havoc with getting the electoral votes cast and counted.
In 1976, Ford and Carter were neck and neck in several states. It was only after Carter won big enough in California to comfortably have an electoral majority that recounts wouldn’t have mattered in the other states.
The Senate probably won’t care too much who wins the election. It only cares about who shows up to claim the seat. If Jean Carnahan shows up on January 3 with a certificate from the governor of Missouri stating that she is the duly appointed Senator of Missouri, then it’s up to the Senate to decide whether or not it is legal and if Mrs. Carnahan should be sworn in. The Senate gets the final call on who its members should be. The same applies to the House. I believe the Supreme Court decided this back when the House refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell in 1969 or 1971. I thought that SCOTUS said, “Hey, it’s not our problem.” (in not those exact words.)
In a similar vein, the Supreme Court probably wouldn’t touch any question involving electoral college returns that were a little “hinky.” If it didn’t do it in 1876, it won’t do it in 2000.
I don’t know, there may be a civil war in Tennessee. (No, not really.) As far as hatred is concerned, there are many belligerent Bush voters here, and a lot of dirty-handed campaigning as well. One particularly sophisticated technique being used by Bush supporters here is the stealing of Gore/Lieberman signs. Local campaign headquarters have run out as people have come in for the fourth and fifth time for their stinkin’ yard sign. I know of one person who obtained four small signs and one large one and tied them all together in his yard to try to prevent further theft. And many Gore signs I’ve seen have spray paint or other defacement on them.
Meanwhile, I see Bush signs in many non-residential places, like abandoned lots and random places on the side of the road (we have sign laws here). And none of them have been the medium for vandals. This sign thing is just one example of the hate-the-guy vs. hope-the-guy-doesn’t-get-elected, Republican/Democrat disparities I get to see around here (Gore’s home state). I just don’t get it. I could definitely see a civil war in the broadest, most metaphorical sense of the word if said op situation were to occur. Obviously, contrary to what was previously intimated in this thread, not all Republican-backers adhere to and cheerfully obey the laws.
Ahh yes, Adam Clayton Powell. I found this on Brittanica:
"and in 1967 the House voted to deprive him of his seat. He was nevertheless reelected in his district in 1968 but was then deprived by his colleagues in the House of his committee chairmanship and his seniority. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the action of the House in depriving him of his seat had been unconstitutional, but by that time Powell’s health was failing. "
I don’t know if there are enough parallels between the Powell case (after all, he WAS on the ballot and elected) and the Carnahan case for the Supremes to draw a precedent.
However, if Joe Lieberman wins re-election in Connecticut and also wins the Vice Presidency, the Republican governor would get to appoint his successor, who I’m sure would be Republican, despite a Democrat having been elected to the office. So I can see another possible attempt to deny a seat, another court case, and some grounds for cooler heads to prevail and effect a compromise.
Funny thing about Texas, IIRC it is the only state that can succede, granted to it by the Fed as a condition of statehood. If, heaven forbid, Algore gets in, I think he should take his state and leave the union.
By all means. Any state that can execute an average of one person every two weeks is not a state I want to keep.
Besides, my brother lives there, so it would give me an excuse to get a passport…