# What if Bush wins the popular vote but Kerry wins the electoral vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456 "2004-09-14T19:30:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/21 "2004-09-15T08:23:33Z")
> [@Hail Ants](#): > > If there’s a genuine, _credible_ source telling them so sure. But if the stories turn out to be complete bullshit (like in '00) and _after three recounts_ their guy is still the loser they aren’t going to continue petitioning the FL Supreme Court for extensions. I doubt they’d go beyond one recounting. So which parallel universe was this? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/22 "2004-09-15T09:31:32Z")
I would have fewer gripes about the EC if indeed states divvied up electoral votes either on an overall percentile basis (Candidate X wins 30% of the popular vote and therefore gets 30% of the electoral votes, with whatever mathematical wrangling is required there) or by districts. IIRC there are two states that still do divide up their votes (which I’ll go look up in a minute). Unfortunately this is something that would have to change on a state-by-state basis, and the party that currently gains most in each state by the winner-takes-all system is unlikely to change the status quo just to be equitable and/or nice about it. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/23 "2004-09-15T12:23:26Z")
Also, each state dividing votes by proportion still doesn’t eliminate the fact that smaller states will get a larger say than big states because of the fact that the number of electors is the number of Reps plus the number of Senators. Thus, for example, a state that only has enough population for 1 Rep still gets 3 electoral votes…whereas a state that has enough population for 40 Reps gets 42 electoral votes. The people in the small state therefore have something like 3X the weighting on their votes. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/24 "2004-09-15T12:34:49Z")
> [@testride](#): > > Colorado is considering legislation which, as I understand it, would award electoral votes on the basis of the winner in each congressional district, and the candidate who received a majority of those would also receive the state’s two “senatorial” electoral votes (I guess in case of a tie you could give one to each candidate). This is incorrect. Colorado’s proposed amendment would assign the electoral vote as a result of the percentage of popular vote, pretty much as described in **Gyrate** ’s post below yours. > [@](#): > > Apparently two or three states already work this way, and any state could choose to do so by legislation? This is closer. Maine and Nebraska assign their votes as follows: one to the winner of each congressional district, and two to the state-wide winner. And, yes, the manner of assigning the electoral votes is entirely up to the state, and can be changed to be anything the legislature wants. That’s going to be an interesting aspect if the Colorado initiative passes (unlikely at the moment), as the initiative process here bypasses the legislature. I would expect to see cases filed as quickly as the evening of the 2nd. Hmmm, maybe we can be the Florida of 2004! ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/25 "2004-09-15T12:42:50Z")
> [@Hail Ants](#): > > And **Polerius** , to varying degrees those are somewhat valid points but we’re talking about a presidential election here, not just politics in general. And you left out the 1960 election, where its pretty much a given that there really was a lot of ‘shannanagins’ but Nixon conceded anyway because it was the height of the Cold War. Who knows. Back then the DNC might have put the interests of the country ahead of its own too. Ah, the old myth of Nixon’s graceful concession in 1960. Sure, he didn’t **personally** demand recounts in _11 states_–the party leaders did that for him, probably at his instigation. And it backfired, because not only did those recounts not do Nixon any good, but they prompted the Democrats to retaliate by calling for a recount in Hawaii, which cost Nixon his victory in that state. [Cite.](http://slate.msn.com/id/91350/) ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/26 "2004-09-15T14:41:26Z")
**John** and **pervert** , here are links to parts [1](http://www.slate.com/id/2105055/), [2](http://www.slate.com/id/2105267) and [3](http://www.slate.com/id/2106457/) of the series written by Timothy Noah in Slate. I pass these on for your (and others’) perusal – I haven’t got time to answer in detail right now. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/27 "2004-09-15T15:53:35Z")
> [@](#): > > So you’re saying that if an illegal ballot leads to thousands of intended votes for Bush being cast for a third party candidate Right, the illegal ballot that was approved by both parties before the election. What is your definition of illegal? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/28 "2004-09-16T02:05:59Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Right, the illegal ballot that was approved by both parties before the election. What is your definition of illegal? My definition of illegal is not in accordance with law, and Florida law required that all candidates be listed on the same side of the ballot. As a Democratic operative [noted](http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/16/palm_beach/index.html?sid=996762) before the elction and complained to the county’s election board, but they just ignored the complant and pretended that the Democrats had approved of it. As did the national media. And you. ---
**Author:** ![testride](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@testride](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/testride)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/29 "2004-09-16T03:54:08Z")
To \*\*This Year’s Model, \*\* thanks for the correction. I apologize for my confusion. Could you say more about how the Colorado proposal would work? If electoral votes are to be awarded in proportion to the popular vote, is there a provision for awarding fractional electoral votes? Or would the numbers have to be rounded up or down? Would third-party candidates get any electoral votes, and if so, would they have to meet some minimum threshold percentage of popular votes to be included? Under this system, would Nader or Buchanan (or anyone other than Bush and Gore) have collected any electoral votes in the last election? I don’t know whether the Colorado proposal is perfect, but I think almost anything would be better than “winner take all.” ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/30 "2004-09-16T04:18:42Z")
> [@testride](#): > > To \*\*This Year’s Model, \*\* thanks for the correction. I apologize for my confusion. Could you say more about how the Colorado proposal would work? If electoral votes are to be awarded in proportion to the popular vote, is there a provision for awarding fractional electoral votes? Or would the numbers have to be rounded up or down? Would third-party candidates get any electoral votes, and if so, would they have to meet some minimum threshold percentage of popular votes to be included? Under this system, would Nader or Buchanan (or anyone other than Bush and Gore) have collected any electoral votes in the last election? Well, I’ll tell you, it’s really a piece of garbage. For anyone interested, [here](http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/initrefr.nsf/89fb842d0401c52087256cbc00650696/69836dccc258499287256e9200650532/%24FILE/Amendment%2036%20-%20Presidential%20Electors.pdf) is the (PDF) text of the amendment. Whole votes only are awarded. My understanding is that no party can be awarded votes unless they are entitled to one whole vote, meaning 11.1% of the popular vote. However, that can be taken away if the calculations result in more than our nine votes. (They take away starting at the bottom.) Nader was third here in 2000, and would have not won any votes. Ross Perot would have won (I think) two in 1992. I’ve said before, I could maybe get behind a switch to the Maine/Nebraska system, but this is just ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/31 "2004-09-16T14:38:46Z")
One problem I see with deciding electoral votes on a congressional-district basis: You could have even bigger and more vicious shenanigans going on with redistricting (a la Texas’s recent flap). ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/32 "2004-09-16T23:04:23Z")
FWIW, when this Republican saw that Bush might lose Florida, I swallowed my pride and vowed that if he lost I’d accept Gore as president and not complain about it. I’ve already made the same vow this time about Bush and Kerry. I think the dvisiveness of “selected not elected” is potentially more damaging to the country than my chosen candidate’s losing. Oh and whenever I see debates about the EC, I have to point out: the EC saved us from having Florida-style recounts _in every county in the nation_. That alone means it’s worth keeping. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/33 "2004-09-16T23:12:33Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Why not remove the human element of the Electoral College - or, if you like, substitute dummy voters (no pun intended) for those currently selected - and just add the numbers from each state to achieve the result? > > This would have the twin benefits of ensuring state representation (which seems to be the major purpose of the EC system) while removing the maverick element (so called faithless electors). It would also avoid any problems vis-a-vis President and VP. > > Why the need for two levels of popular voting? Why? Because the Constitution requires it. From the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (with comments from the Encarta – [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia\_761569008\_3\_\_\_\_69/Constitution\_of\_the\_United\_States.html#s69](http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_3 ____ 69/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html#s69)):: > [@](#): > > Article II > > Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows > > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. > > _Comment: The president ensures that the nation’s laws are carried out and enforced. The president serves a four-year term, and is formally elected by electors of the Electoral College. Originally the state legislatures chose the electors, but since the 1820s they have been chosen through direct elections._ > > The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be no more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President: and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by the states, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President. > > _Comment: Congress formally counts the presidential election ballots from the electoral college. If no presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the electoral college, the House chooses the president. Originally the second place winner in the electoral college became the vice president, with ties decided in the Senate. This section was amended by the 12th Amendment, which specified that the vice president be chosen on a separate ballot._ > > The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. There is no provision for “dummy” electors. In other words, it’s not a problem that can be solved through ordinary state or federal legislation – it would require a constitutional amendment. And if we’re going to tinker with that part of the Constitution at all, why not abolish the EC entirely? At least, that’s my take on it. In a related GD thread – “Republican Elector in West Virginia says he might not vote for Bush” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821) – **John Mace** posted the following from the website of the U.S. Embassy to Mexico ([http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/ecollege.htm](http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/ecollege.htm)): > [@](#): > > Are Electors required to vote for the candidate who won his or her state’s popular vote? > > There is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states (24 plus D.C. at last count) require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories – Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties. > > The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from Electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called “faithless electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute Elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. IOW, it’s an open question – the Supreme Court has not decisively ruled on whether or not it would be constitutional for a state to require an elector to vote a certain way, or punish an elector for failing to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Monocracy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monocracy/32/4493_2.png) [@Monocracy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monocracy)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/34 "2004-09-16T23:19:35Z")
i find the scenario of Bush losing the electoral, but winning the popular, to be highly improbable. Republicans have a slight advantage when it comes to electoral votes, because more smaller states vote Republican. I added up the 25 states most likely to go Kerry’s way and the 25 most likely to vote for Bush and came out with over 300 vs under 230 EVs. Splitting up the electoral votes by popular vote would give smaller states an even larger advantage. For example, in a state with 3 electoral votes, a 60-40 popular split would give the loser 33% of the EV and the winner 67%. In a state with 50 electoral votes, a 60-40 split would give the loser 40% and the winner 60%. And how would you do a 60-40 split with a state with 4 EVs? 3-1 or 2-2? Both seem unfair. Splitting up EVs by congressional districts would be disastrous. It would virtually gaurantee a huge discrepancy in electoral vs popular vote. It would be like going through the electoral system twice. Democrats would win big in districts containing large cities, but lose small in most other districts. > [@Polerius](#): > > A couple days ago [electoral-vote.com](http://electoral-vote.com) had Kerry leading Bush by something like > 279 to 230 electoral votes. So it could happen, although today, Bush is ahead 291 to 238. That was due to a bunch of Zogby polls taken on Sep. 3 in most of the swing states. The polls were obviously biased towards Kerry a bit, and ended up making the difference in a few states. Later polls by different pollsters contradicted Zogby’s and slowly raised Bush’s EV count to were it is now (311). There are still at least 3 Zogby 9/3 polls up, Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico, with Kerry leading, respectively, 1%, 4%, and 10%. Watch these numbers change when new polls are taken, CO will probably swing to Bush. However, barring any spectacular events, i believe Kerry will soon start to climb slowly electorally. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2004, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456/35 "2004-09-18T16:29:12Z")
> [@Monocracy](#): > > However, barring any spectacular events, i believe Kerry will soon start to climb slowly electorally. I’m still holding out hopes that the September 30 debate in Miami will be a “spectacular event” and that Kerry will get a huge bump in the polls the following week. And I’m **really** looking forward to the Edwards-Cheney faceoff! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-bush-wins-the-popular-vote-but-kerry-wins-the-electoral-vote/264456.md?page=1)