BS: Electoral College Question

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Pseudolus
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:34 PM

Pretty interesting stuff...and here I am waiting for the results of an election where we may just have elected a man who might have been refused the right to vote at that time...history in the making that's for sure.

On a side note I had to step back and think if I was voting for Obama because I wanted to be part of history or because I really believed that it was the right thing to do because he was the right person for the job. I have really gotten caught up in the election this time around. More than ever before. I do think he'll be elected, I do think he's teh right man for teh job and as for that being part of history thing...that's just a bonus.... :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:23 PM

The Electoral College has an interesting track record. In 1824, Andrew Jackson got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams became president.

In 2000, Al Gore got the majority of popular votes. So did Samuel J. Tilden in 1876:

"After the Civil War, federal troops were stationed throughout the South in order to keep the peace, ensure the enforcement of Reconstruction policies, and to protect the rights of the former slaves and their white supporters.  Between 1869 and 1875, federal troops were removed from political duty in all of the other former Confederate states, except for Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina.  When that occurred, the biracial, Republican state governments established under Reconstruction soon collapsed and were replaced by white-only, Democratic "Redeemer" administrations.  

Because of their race and association with the Republican party, Southern blacks were often intimidated with threats or acts of violence by paramilitary groups of Democrats in order to keep black men from casting their ballots. In East Feliciana, Lousiana, for example, the majority of registered voters in 1876 were black and Republican, yet the election results recorded only one Republican vote for the parish.  In South Carolina, the paramilitary Red Shirts were a formidable force in preventing blacks from voting.  In Florida, Democrats distributed Tilden tickets decorated with Republican symbols among the illiterate former slaves.  In all three states, ballot boxes were stuffed with multiple Democratic votes. Had elections in 1876 been free and fair, Hayes and the Republicans might have carried not only the three contested states, but other Southern states as well."

                                           read more here

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:44 PM

"What if it's a tie?"

This CNN video explains it all. And gives a number of ways in which it could actually happen - which has in fact happened in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:21 PM

Yep...we shore do! That's what comes of allowing the common folks to be involved in the process of deciding stuff.

I'm sure it's MUCH better in monarchies and dictatorships... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: john f weldon
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:16 PM

The Americans have a strange way of doing things? Naahhhhh.....

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM

IT ain't gonna roll out that way, however; the best guesses I have seen lay down a projection of 278-320 electoral votes for Obama.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: heric
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM

I guess Ebbie just answered it but I remember that the exact question was also addressed on the ABC News website this morning. Don't immediately see it now, but it is probably still there somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Pseudolus
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:12 PM

i think you're right. I just looked online and it says that the house would pick the president and the senate would pick the VP? Meaning we could have a split ticket? Strange way of doing things....

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM

The "electors" are committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot only. If there is a tie, on the next vote they will be free to choose someone else. {or at least I heard that in the 2000 aftermath}

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM

12th Amendment:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes [from Electors] for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by 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. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President."

That last bit's weird -- if a decision hasn't been made by March 4, then the current Veep gets to be President! Count quick, you guys!!

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:10 PM

One election out of date but given the scenario the facts are the same.

What Happens?

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:09 PM

I seem to remember that is the rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:04 PM

I think it goes to the House.

Subject: BS: Electoral College Question
From: Pseudolus
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:02 PM

I have a question...Since the Electoral College has a total of 538 votes and a candidate needs to have 270 to win the election, what happens if each candidate gets 269? It may not be (currently) politically possible based on states that are solid dem or solid rep btu it is certainly mathematically possible. What happens then? Anybody know?

Frank