The election....
Poll
 | 33 votes (51.56%) | ||
| | 31 votes (48.43%) |
64 members have voted
Quote: WizardI disagree. Suppose the situation were this:
Candidate Prob. Win Evil Points A 50.00% 37 B 49.99% 15 C 0.01% 14
Voting for the least-evil candidate would be C. However, I think your vote does greater good cast for candidate B.
I suppose if that's how you interpret the situation, then yes, it'd make more sense to vote for candidate B. But as far as my interpretation of "evil points" both the Republican and Democratic candidates had far more "evil points," and I'd definitely include this election.
Also, when considering that Romney has almost no chance of winning the electoral vote in my state, I'd rather focus on getting someone like Gary Johnson on the debate stage, and hopefully the White House.
I guess I would have been more accurate if I said that I believe you should only vote with a candidate if there is some combination between you liking them (based on policy and integrity) and them being realistically electable. I think the former is far more important. My point is, if you don't like a candidate you shouldn't vote for them simply because the "other option" is worse, unless you think they are far, far, far worse. Personally I think that both of these clowns are the far worst options and I won't vote for either Obama or Romney.
Quote: SOOPOOYou don't really believe this, Boney, do you? I can't see any scenario between now and election day that will have both the Republican and Democratic nominee so in disfavor that they wont both crush any 3rd party candidate. What odds would you want on the 'field'?
I do, but I think the odds are somewhere in the 1 in 20 range. Like I said, it's not that I think it will happen, but that I think it's worth the shot, because both Romney and Obama are terrible leaders. I'm willing to take that small shot on Gary Johnson. I don't agree with him all of the time, but he's a much more honest candidate than either of these clowns. (And I agree with him a lot more often, as well)
Quote: thecesspitDisillusionment with the current two parties, and hope to move from the Sixth Party System in the US (it's happened several times before where there's been a realignment of the two-party system in the US... it always settles back into a two party system in the end, but re-aligns who the two parties are, and what their core beliefs, areas and policies are).
What all of these "give us a third party!" types forget is that states that have multiple parties are under parlimentary systems. My guess is they would be sick if they saw all the deal-making to allow such a system to work. They would be digusted when they saw "the government fall" for the 3rd time in 10 years, if it is stable. Italy has had what, 60 or so "governments" since WWII? In Israel, Bibi just called for new elections to force the minority's hand. And imagine how nuts the left would have been had Bush "called for elections" in 2002 when he still had 70% approval and reloaded for a new term.
In the USA you are locked into 2/4/6 year terms of government offices. It was laid out this way so things were hard to get done. The Founders knew that if you make it too easy to make new laws, well you will get all kinds of new laws. Every law is some restriction on freedom in some way-except for maybe laws against murder, rape, etc. (Even then, rape can devolve to "date rape" and a guy can get arrested after a night when they were both wasted but the woman realizes what happened and felt taken advantage of.)
If we had a 3rd party in the USA it would lead to either nothing getting done or one of the major parties having to give up major concessions to the mini-jority. Say the greens got 4% of the House, or 16 seats from CA, WA, OR, and MA. Not all that hard to imagine. Then it comes time for the budget and they say, "either you force manufacturers to produce 10% electric cars or we don't fund anything." The minority wants the majority so they either vote "no" as well or say, "10% is crazy, but we will settle for a windfall oil profits tax.'"
Is this what 3rs-partiers want?
The better way is how the Tea Party has operated. Work within a party, run viable candidates in the primaries. Pull that party away from the other, offering real choice.
I'd say that for the most part you are correct. That's exactly how it works most of the time, and I'd accept that. Except that there are times when major political shifts happen. They don't happen without people working for them. But my response to everything else (which I do agree with) is that the point of a political campaign is primarily to win, but the other purposes are to spread a political message. Ron Paul is attempting to do something similar to the Tea Party, while Gary Johnson wants to carry that message across party lines. They have two different goals, and I am encouraged by both.
Let's say that the "Gary Johnson Libertarians" (The term I'll give to Ron Paul supporters who are not trying to work within the Republican Party, but are campaigning for the Libertarian Party) feel that they want to have major concessions by either one or the two parties. The best way for them to do that is have a very aggressive, and hopefully strong campaign. In their eyes, at very worst they won't succeed, and one of the two equally bad parties has control.
The "Ron Paul Libertarians" want to change the Republican Party make up, seeing little or no hope for the Democratic Party. They want to present non-interventionalism and ending the Drug Wars as Conservative philosophy.
I won't say that the Libertarians will definitely win (because that'd be a pretty far out thing to say), but I'm saying that I can't vote for either of the two parties candidates for president, so to me, it seems like a good time to campaign for the Libertarian party. Had the Republican Party nominated somebody better (it's not over, but it'll be Romney), I'd have considered voting Republican, but I just don't consider Romney conservative, nor do I think he'll protect civil liberties. And clearly, Obama isn't conservative, and hasn't protected civil liberties.
So what's a Conservative-Libertarian to do?
Nate is a competitive former-professional (poker) gambler. I wonder if he's a member here......
Quote: Boney526
I won't say that the Libertarians will definitely win (because that'd be a pretty far out thing to say), but I'm saying that I can't vote for either of the two parties candidates for president, so to me, it seems like a good time to campaign for the Libertarian party. Had the Republican Party nominated somebody better (it's not over, but it'll be Romney), I'd have considered voting Republican, but I just don't consider Romney conservative, nor do I think he'll protect civil liberties. And clearly, Obama isn't conservative, and hasn't protected civil liberties.
So what's a Conservative-Libertarian to do?
Your last line states it----CONSERVATIVE-Libertarian. Libertarians seem to not be able to gain ground because even Libertarians have left and right wings. I find some want to be libertarians because they want econoic freedom but others want to be libertarian because they would be allowed to smoke dope.
It is as I always say about Ron Paul. It is next to impossible not to like something he says, no matter your leanings. But some other part makes him unaceptable to most people. Me, I love his Constitutional message, but when I heard him say "we need to blame ourselves for 9-11" he was a nogo for me, forever. His son seems to be a little more mainstream but with the same Constitutional views.
Whats "a conservative to do" is vote for your best choice. One thing I learned interviewing and hiring people is that you never, ever find exactly what you need. You have to take most of the best. For me that is now the Tea-Party wing of the GOP.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat all of these "give us a third party!" types forget is that states that have multiple parties are under parlimentary systems. My guess is they would be sick if they saw all the deal-making to allow such a system to work. They would be digusted when they saw "the government fall" for the 3rd time in 10 years, if it is stable. Italy has had what, 60 or so "governments" since WWII? In Israel, Bibi just called for new elections to force the minority's hand. And imagine how nuts the left would have been had Bush "called for elections" in 2002 when he still had 70% approval and reloaded for a new term.
In the USA you are locked into 2/4/6 year terms of government offices. It was laid out this way so things were hard to get done. The Founders knew that if you make it too easy to make new laws, well you will get all kinds of new laws. Every law is some restriction on freedom in some way-except for maybe laws against murder, rape, etc.
Hmm, hung parliaments tend to make things hard to get done. I approve of things being hard to get done. Unlike most Canadians, I thought the Conservative Minority government in Canada was a relatively good thing... it took ages to get things changed, with only the most obvious things that had some cross party support got approved... I'd have preferred a NDP minority government, or actually a proper Canadian Liberal party, not the washed up mess they've become, but still a minority government is conservative (small c) and I don't mind that at all.
Quote:(Even then, rape can devolve to "date rape" and a guy can get arrested after a night when they were both wasted but the woman realizes what happened and felt taken advantage of.)
You've opened a whole can of beans but "Date Rape" is no trivial matter. Seriously, don't trivialize due to some "cry rape" bullshit (this happens a lot less than the press would have you believe).
Quote:
If we had a 3rd party in the USA it would lead to either nothing getting done or one of the major parties having to give up major concessions to the mini-jority. Say the greens got 4% of the House, or 16 seats from CA, WA, OR, and MA. Not all that hard to imagine. Then it comes time for the budget and they say, "either you force manufacturers to produce 10% electric cars or we don't fund anything." The minority wants the majority so they either vote "no" as well or say, "10% is crazy, but we will settle for a windfall oil profits tax.'"
Nothing getting done is a good thing, though.
Quote:
The better way is how the Tea Party has operated. Work within a party, run viable candidates in the primaries. Pull that party away from the other, offering real choice.
What has happened in the past is if there is a big enough pull, the party sheers, and you get a realignment. It's what happened in 1968, for example. I do agree that the US will tend towards a two party system, but with short periods of a smaller third party. The Reform Party was a force for a period too. I dislike the Tea Party's politics, but I do think the more fiscally conservative wing of the Republicans need to come to the fore, as the US needs to have the decision on what sort of country it wants to be with regards to the welfare state. I personally dislike social conservatism, and often that gets tied up and along with fiscally conservative policy (and vice versa, liberal social policy has often been tied to more left-wing spending/taxing plans).
The Older Canadian Liberal party did try and promote a socially liberal, fiscally conservative platform to actually show a difference than being between the NDP and Conservatives, but they moved into the area between the two parties, much to their detriment.
Quote: AZDuffmanYour last line states it----CONSERVATIVE-Libertarian. Libertarians seem to not be able to gain ground because even Libertarians have left and right wings. I find some want to be libertarians because they want econoic freedom but others want to be libertarian because they would be allowed to smoke dope.
It is as I always say about Ron Paul. It is next to impossible not to like something he says, no matter your leanings. But some other part makes him unaceptable to most people. Me, I love his Constitutional message, but when I heard him say "we need to blame ourselves for 9-11" he was a nogo for me, forever. His son seems to be a little more mainstream but with the same Constitutional views.
Whats "a conservative to do" is vote for your best choice. One thing I learned interviewing and hiring people is that you never, ever find exactly what you need. You have to take most of the best. For me that is now the Tea-Party wing of the GOP.
Well sure we have left and right wings within the party. The party is made up of different people, and different people have different interests, goals, and thoughts.
But we all agree on the non-aggression principle (at least seemingly all "Big L Libertarians"). And who says we economic conservatism and social tolerance can't go hand in hand? I think the only way we'll have small government is through social tolerance, and less intervention in people's lives. He doesn't say that we "need to blame ourselves," but if you study the history of the Cold War, you'd understand that US policy in the past has led to all of this hate towards us. We basically decided to defend Europe, which led to huge expansions in our newly interventionalist policies, eventually leading us into Iran with the CIA. I mean I could get into this stuff completely, and I don't agree with Paul that we should be as non-interventionalist as him, but living with your head in the ground acting like our policies didn't lead to hate is just being ignorant. We did in-directly cause 9/11. It's not our fault, as specific individual Americans, and it sure as hell isn't justified, and we should have gone to Afghanistan (even Paul voted for that) but we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, we shouldn't be making the same mistakes that spread hate of the US around the world, especially in the Middle East.
Because they will be mad. We don't get to do whatever we want without anyone either caring or doing something to us. If you think that (which you didn't say, but it seems to be the conclusion of many Neocons) then you are living with your head in the sand.
http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/Obama-Soldier-Field.jpg
Quote: only1choiceHas the recent immigration change, changed anyones mind?
http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/Obama-Soldier-Field.jpg
Now the Bears have a QB when theirs quits in the NFC Championship Game apparently.
Quote: pacomartin
At the very least Indiana and Nebraska 2nd district went for Obama in 2008, but are leaning strongly Republican in 2012. The commonly sited 9 battleground states were all won by Obama in 2008.
Florida
Ohio
Virginia
Colorado
Iowa
New Hampshire
Nevada
North Carolina
Wisconsin
CNN is now considering North Carolina as leaning Romney, and Wisconsin as leaning Obama. Of course that may change with the VP nomination.
So if we have 7 swing states (instead of 9)
- Obama wins with Florida alone
- Obama needs Ohio & New Hampshire for a tie, and
- Obama needs Ohio and one other state for a win.
-
Obama could also win with the four small states (NH, NV, IA, and CO).
As difficult as it is to believe, there is a reasonable scenario where Romney could win both Florida and Ohio and still lose the election.
Obama is up four points in Florida, seven in Ohio, and six in Pennsylvania.
Among the things that those states have in common is that voters there have seen an avalanche of early advertising focused on questioning Romney’s business record. The Super PAC supporting Obama’s reelection effort has already dumped $10 million into Bain-related ads, in a series of ads that have run in five major battleground states since the middle of May.
“If Romney wins, the middle class loses,” one ad from Priorities USA Action declares.
Quote: pacomartinObama is up four points in Florida, seven in Ohio, and six in Pennsylvania.
I am not looking at polling until at least tomorrow to let the supremes decision work its way thru the averages. But to have FL at 4 and PA at 6 might as well go to Romney as long as Obama <50%. PA has voter ID which will take away the Obama lead among dead voters in Philadelphia. I can say I do not see the Obama energy of 2008 repeating so far here in PA. I've seen the ads in question and expect them to backfire. All Romney needs to do to make them backfire is show Obama bragging about running coal mines and power plants out of business. Then show his resistance to drilling. Fracking is still huge here--show him against it and he loses the small-towns that are seeing roughnecks and roustabouts filling hotels and restaurants.
Of the 7 true battle ground states, if Obama wins only New Hampshire and Ohio that is a "potential tie" which will be determined in the House of Representatives. Presumably Romney will win that vote since he has more states.
If Obama wins more than Ohio and New Hampshire, then he wins the election. It could be Ohio and some other state, or it could be Florida by itself.
EDIT: Table replaced with better version below.
If it goes to a tie the number of states Romney wins shouldn't matter, but a vote among the House members, right? The house is 242-190 GOP right now, so Romney would obviously win. That is assuming the old house takes the vote, but I don't see the balance changing much this election.
Regarding the battleground states, could it be said that if Obama carries either FL or OH he will likely win? This assumes he doesn't take Virginia, which I doubt he will. I tend to think Romney will take Florida, leaving the fate of the country in Ohio's hands. Vote with care, teddys.
Electoral votes of battleground states:
NH 4
NV 6
IA 6
CO 9
AZ 11
VA 13
OH 18
FL 29
By the way, 270towin.com gives Obama a 93% chance of winning.
Quote: WizardPaco, I fixed your table.
If it goes to a tie the number of states Romney wins shouldn't matter, but a vote among the House members, right? The house is 242-190 GOP right now, so Romney would obviously win. That is assuming the old house takes the vote, but I don't see the balance changing much this election.
Actually in the event of a tie it goes to the House, but it isn't one vote per representative , the representatives must agree on one vote per state. There must be a majority of states. There would be a lot of complaints if a state votes for a different candidate than the people.
Assuming Obama wins all the blue states in the table, and if in addition wins Ohio and New Hampshire it is a tie. If he wins Ohio and a larger state like Iowa he wins the election.
I agree that Romney will probably win Virginia, but CNN still feels it is too close to call.
I changed the table a little so it is hopefully clearer.
| # | State | 2012 | 2008 | 2004 | 2000 | 1996 | 1992 |
| 0 | D.C. | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 1 | Minnesota | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 2 | Hawaii | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 3 | Rhode Island | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 4 | Massachusetts | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 5 | New York | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 6 | Oregon | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 7 | Washington | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 8 | Maryland | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 9 | Delaware | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 10 | California | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 11 | Connecticut | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 12 | Illinois | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 13 | Maine | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 14 | New Jersey | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 15 | Vermont | Obama | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 16 | Michigan | Obama * | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 17 | Wisconsin | Obama * | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 18 | Pennsylvania | Obama * | Obama | Kerry | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| 19 | New Mexico | Obama * | Obama | GWB | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| tie | New Hampshire | battle | Obama | Kerry | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| tie | Ohio | battle | Obama | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| tie | Iowa | battle | Obama | GWB | Gore | Clinton | Clinton |
| tie | Florida | battle | Obama | GWB | GWB | Clinton | GHWB |
| tie | Nevada | battle | Obama | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| tie | Colorado | battle | Obama | GWB | GWB | Dole | Clinton |
| tie | Virginia | battle | Obama | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 24 | North Carolina | Romney * | Obama | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 23 | Indiana | Romney * | Obama | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 22 | Missouri | Romney * | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| 21 | Arizona | Romney * | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | GHWB |
| 20 | Arkansas | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| 19 | Kentucky | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| 18 | Louisiana | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| 17 | Tennessee | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| 16 | West Virginia | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Clinton | Clinton |
| 15 | Georgia | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | Clinton |
| 14 | Montana | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | Clinton |
| 13 | Alabama | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 12 | Mississippi | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 11 | South Carolina | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 10 | Texas | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 9 | Nebraska | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 8 | Alaska | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 7 | Idaho | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 6 | Kansas | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 5 | North Dakota | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 4 | Oklahoma | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 3 | South Dakota | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 2 | Utah | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
| 1 | Wyoming | Romney | McCain | GWB | GWB | Dole | GHWB |
Quote: pacomartinActually in the event of a tie it goes to the House, but it isn't one vote per representative , the representatives must agree on one vote per state. There must be a majority of states. There would be a lot of complaints if a state votes for a different candidate than the people.
Thanks, I didn't know that. What if the representatives for a state were tied. I could easily see Nevada going 50-50. Since it has never happened before, I don't so easily see that the representatives would go with the whoever won the state. If they intended that when the Constitution was written, couldn't they have just mandated a win by state count to break the tie? What if that process results in a 25-25 tie?
What's even more amusing, that 's exactly the question I wanted to ask when I hit reply!
The House must continue to vote until someone gets a majority. The only time this ever happened, there were four candidates that earned electoral votes. The House has to vote for the top 3. Since repeated voting was required, there is a lot of room for horse trading. The lead candidate actually lost the election, because #2 (John Quincy Adams) and #3 (Henry Clay) made a power sharing deal where Henry Clay was guaranteed to become the Secretary of State.
Quote: WizardSince it has never happened before, I don't so easily see that the representatives would go with the whoever won the state. If they intended that when the Constitution was written, couldn't they have just mandated a win by state count to break the tie? What if that process results in a 25-25 tie?
Actually it did happen in the 1824 election. There were four candidates that won electoral votes, but only the top 3 were eligible for the run-off election in the House. Jackson had the plurality of both popular vote and the electoral vote, but he LOST the House election.
The 1824 election
When the constitution was written, they did not really envision a two way tie. The concern was more with 3 or more candidates. They wanted the President to win by a majority of electoral votes, not a plurality. The idea was to allow for some horsetrading. I don't think they envisioned a dual party system.
It is only my personal opinion that the representatives would feel obligated to go with popular vote of the state, and disregard their own party affiliation. But the constitution actually does allow for a "no-vote" for a state. As long as 2/3 of the states are counted, the run-off is valid. However, I find it difficult to believe that people wouldn't riot if the state doesn't vote.
Quote: weaselmanIt,s interesting. When I look at Wizard's post, the last sentence reads "Does DC get a vote?", but when I hit reply, it is "Want if that process results in a 25-25 tie?". What's even more amusing, that 's exactly the question I wanted to ask when I hit reply!
I found the answer to my question, but in the process thought of a new one. So what you saw is a result of me editting my post.
Although multiple votes and horse trading is allowed, it is still possible to have repeated 25-25 votes with no hope to break the impasse. What would happen then? I think ultimately the two sides might have to resort to tossing a coin or drawing cards, which has decided many lesser elections before.
Quote: WizardAlthough multiple votes and horse trading is allowed, it is still possible to have repeated 25-25 votes with no hope to break the impasse. What would happen then? I think ultimately the two sides might have to resort to tossing a coin or drawing cards, which has decided many lesser elections before.
SHORT ANSWER:
Biden would become president on January 20, 2013 until the impasse is resolved.
LONG RAMBLING ANSWER:
Well, under my tie scenario it would be 29 Republican states with 21 Democratic states. If you look at majority leadership in the House, it is 33 Republican, 15 Democrat, and 2 split before the election. It is extremely unlikely that Democrats would regain the majority.
But it does raise some questions:
(1) Mathematical: Does there exist a 25-25 split of the House with equal electoral college votes (allowing for District of Columbia)
(2) What about a "faithless delegate". Would they even do the vote in the event of a tie, risking the situation with a faithless delegate. Even if the faithless delegate faces jail time, people have done worse.
(3) Wizard's original question, what if there are repeated 25-25 votes. The constitution only required repeated votes until the deadlock is broken. But it doesn't say the mechanism. The 1824 election did all the horse trading before the first vote, because the first vote was already a majority. The lead candidate was shocked. He went on to win the 1828 election.
(4) In theory you must have at least 2/3 of the states vote in the House election for it to be valid. What if the 21 states for Obama simply refuse to vote. There won't be enough to have the required 2/3 majority. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect (Biden) serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
I think it would be perfectly legal for the Democratically controlled Senate to elect Obama as Vice President, even if the House elects Romney as President.
While it would be unusual, at least the Democrats would have the presidency back in the event of Romney being incapacitated. Obama would also be available to break ties. There is no provision in the constitution that requires that the POTUS and VP be from the same party.
The "tie scenario" is considered realistic enough that Obama has opened up a campaign office in Omaha, in pursuit of that breakaway electoral college vote that he just barely won in 2008. It might be a tie breaker.
===============
I believe that the following scenario is legal (if not politically realistic). The Democratic states in the House refuse to vote. The Senate elects Obama as VP. By Default Biden becomes president on January 20. So the team is in place, except backwards.
Quote: pacomartinSHORT ANSWER:
Biden would become president on January 20, 2013 until the impasse is resolved.
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that won't happen.
On the other hand, it would make for a good novel.
Quote: thecesspitI would assume the Democrats who refused to vote would become unelectable. I would also assume (yeah, laugh it up!) that some of those delegates would actually vote to keep the wheels turning.
I don't know if they would be unelectable. What if Obama won the national popular vote? They could argue that they are just following the will of the people and they don't want to turn over the second election in 12 years to the Republicans even though they won the popular vote. Many Democrats would support any technique that is possible.
People do shenanigans all the time. In some states whole party electorates remain outside of the state in a hotel, just so they don't have to vote for some issue where they know they will lose.
But the Obama as VP and Romney as POTUS is more realistic. Since the Senate is responsible for electing the VP and the House is responsible for electing the POTUS, many people would see it as fair. Particularly in the case where Obama wins the majority of the popular vote.
The question is how workable would such a situtation be? Would Obama tolerate it? The VP of the United States is also the President of the United States Senate. Since that institution is controlled by the Democratic party, he would still have power. Let's not forget that he will only turn age 51 this year. He will still be young in 2016 when he will be eligible to run for President again.
Quote: NareedI'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that won't happen.
On the other hand, it would make for a good novel.
I readily admit that I am engaging in a little fantasy. But the Wizard's specific question is what would happen if repeated votes keep resulting in a 25-25 tie. The answer is Biden would become president, and the House would continue to vote until there is not a tie.
The most likely scenario is (a) a tie won't happen, and (b) the House would vote Romney as POTUS. The Senate would not take advantage of their Democratic majority and vote for Romney's VP candidate just to maintain tradition.
Actually, I do think there is still a possibility that the Senate would vote Biden in as the VP. I think he would be willing to take the position just for the slight possibility that he could become President, either through incapacity, or it would give him a leg up in 2016.
Quote: pacomartin(b) the House would vote Romney as POTUS.
Can they do that? Assuming they cast all procedure and respect for the Constitution aside, could they just vote Romney as president now?
Also, could the Supreme Court break such an impasse? Frankly, I still don't know where the Supreme Court got the authority to interfere in how Florida chose its electors in 2000.
Quote: WizardAlso, could the Supreme Court break such an impasse? Frankly, I still don't know where the Supreme Court got the authority to interfere in how Florida chose its electors in 2000.
If you take things to court, you're subject to review by higher courts.
Quote: WizardCan they do that? Assuming they cast all procedure and respect for the Constitution aside, could they just vote Romney as president now?
Also, could the Supreme Court break such an impasse? Frankly, I still don't know where the Supreme Court got the authority to interfere in how Florida chose its electors in 2000.
They CANNOT do it now.
I mean that in the event of a tie, if the House gets 2/3 of the states to vote, they are constitutionally bound to elect a president. There is no federal law that says how each state's delegate must vote, but there may be some individual state laws.
So let us suppose we have the hypothetical situation that there is a electoral tie as mentioned, with Romney winning 29 states and Obama 21.
Now look at the following four states congressional delegation
Iowa (3–2 Democratic), Senate (1 Rep, 1 Dem)
North Carolina (7–6 Democratic), Senate (1 Rep, 1 Dem)
Colorado (4–3 Republican),Senate (2 Dem)
Nevada (2-1 Republican), Senate (1 Rep, 1 Dem)
Hypothetically all four of these states would go to Romney if you go by popular vote. However, if you use another standard, they could vote for Obama. It would be easier to see that if Nevada elects one more Democratic Representative.
You could use the standard that each representative can vote the same as their district. IN any case there is no federal law, but there may be a state law.
That would end up a 25/25 tie. They could hold that position until the Senate elects Biden (or Obama) VP. As I said earlier there is no federal law that says the POTUS and the VP must be the same party.
Quote: slytherHeh if you think the FOX News and MSNBC talking heads are fired up now, just imagine them under this scenario!
It would be the talking heads Relief Act of 2012.
Just the fact that the constitution is vague on which House or Senate should do the election would make the TV networks spin. The only time it happened, the House held it's first ballot on February 9, 1825, but congress was very different. Congress had ended their session on May 27, 1824 and reconvened another session from December 6, 1824 – March 3, 1825 specifically to vote for the President. Inauguration day was not until March 4.
The newspapers published a statement, said to be from a member of Congress, essentially accused Clay (4th place) of selling Adams (2nd place) his support for the office of Secretary of State. Adams was elected President despite being in distant 2nd place.
The modern system of each candidate campaigning with his choice for VP had not yet developed. The VP was a separate election, and Calhoun won a clear mandate in the general election so there was no need for a special Senate election.
On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. These are usually known as faithless electors. there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote: in December 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, from winning the Vice Presidency. However, Johnson was promptly elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate in February 1837; therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process.
But just the possibility of a "faithless elector" personally electing the next president would make FOX News's business goals for the year.
having a slight lead in the national polls. Read this:
In June 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 39 percent to 32 percent, with independent John Anderson at 21 percent. In November, Reagan defeated Carter, 51 percent to 41 percent, with Anderson getting less than 7 percent.
• By 1988, the June polling was far more misleading: Michael Dukakis was ahead of George H.W. Bush by a landslide, 52 percent to 38 percent. Bush garnered more than 53 percent in November.
• The June 1992 polling projected the nation's first independent president, Ross Perot. At 39 percent Perot easily topped Bush (31 percent) and Bill Clinton at 25 percent. Less than five months later, the order was reversed: Clinton won with 43 percent, Bush (37 percent) was ousted and Perot finished last with 19 percent.
• Gallup's June 1996 survey got Clinton's re-election percentage right on the nose (49 percent), but Bob Dole, at 33 percent, was well below his eventual 41 percent and Perot had 17 percent in June but finished with about 8 percent in November.
• The squeaker of 2000 was close even in June, but Gallup had George W. Bush up over Al Gore, 46 percent to 41 percent. Come November, Gore won the popular vote by half a percentage point.
• Gallup had John Kerry well on his way to avenging Gore's loss in June 2004. Kerry led Bush outside the margin of error at 49 percent to 43 percent. Instead, Bush grabbed his second term with 51 percent in November.
All this goes to show that people aren't paying attention in June,
they never have. All the experts will tell you summer polling is useless.
Carter ahead of Reagan? And Dukakis ahead of Bush by 14 points?
Its funny when you look back on it.
Quote: EvenBobEverwhere I read the Left is chortling about Obama
having a slight lead in the national polls. Read this:
In June 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 39 percent to 32 percent, with independent John Anderson at 21 percent. In November, Reagan defeated Carter, 51 percent to 41 percent, with Anderson getting less than 7 percent.
• By 1988, the June polling was far more misleading: Michael Dukakis was ahead of George H.W. Bush by a landslide, 52 percent to 38 percent. Bush garnered more than 53 percent in November.
• The June 1992 polling projected the nation's first independent president, Ross Perot. At 39 percent Perot easily topped Bush (31 percent) and Bill Clinton at 25 percent. Less than five months later, the order was reversed: Clinton won with 43 percent, Bush (37 percent) was ousted and Perot finished last with 19 percent.
• Gallup's June 1996 survey got Clinton's re-election percentage right on the nose (49 percent), but Bob Dole, at 33 percent, was well below his eventual 41 percent and Perot had 17 percent in June but finished with about 8 percent in November.
• The squeaker of 2000 was close even in June, but Gallup had George W. Bush up over Al Gore, 46 percent to 41 percent. Come November, Gore won the popular vote by half a percentage point.
• Gallup had John Kerry well on his way to avenging Gore's loss in June 2004. Kerry led Bush outside the margin of error at 49 percent to 43 percent. Instead, Bush grabbed his second term with 51 percent in November.
All this goes to show that people aren't paying attention in June,
they never have. All the experts will tell you summer polling is useless.
Carter ahead of Reagan? And Dukakis ahead of Bush by 14 points?
Its funny when you look back on it.
Yep, 3rd party candidates sure do throw a wrench in things. Too bad that's not an issue this year (seriously...these choices suck). As for people not paying attention...well, this thread would die if you stopped posting in it:-)
Quote: rdw4potuswell, this thread would die if you stopped posting in it:-)
But doesn't that apply to you too? And why should it
die, the election is 4 months away. I changed my
mind about participating, this election is more fascinating
by the day. And whats with Obama losing so much weight,
he looks like a living skeleton.
Quote: EvenBobAnd whats with Obama losing so much weight,
he looks like a living skeleton.
If the restaurant owners that you visited dropped dead after you left, you'd give up food, too:-)
If Dukakis was sunk by that tank picture, then Romney's candidacy should end just about every time he opens his mouth. "I love nascar...some of the owners are my friends!" "My wife has two Cadillacs" "I like being able to fire people" "whatever I said before...I stand behind it." I can't imagine a reason for voting for this asshat, except that the other candidate is Obama.
Quote: rdw4potusexcept that the other candidate is Obama.
Thats how Reagan got elected. I was living in Calif
in 1980. Reagan was a national joke. Old Hollywood
actor, Bedtime for Bonzo, host of a western TV show,
nobody took him seriously. He was former gov of Calif,
but to the rest of the country, thats like being gov of
Disneyland. The press had a field day with mocking
Reagan, it was relentless. Too old and too fake.
But he won in a landslide, anybody but Carter.
Quote: rdw4potusI can't imagine a reason for voting for this asshat, except that the other candidate is Obama.
I've never found a reason to vote for any candidate, except that all the others are worse.
Quote: NareedI've never found a reason to vote for any candidate, except that all the others are worse.
Every election is like that, hold your nose and vote
for the less revolting candidate. I voted for Bush
twice because the thought of Gore and Kerry as
president was truly frightening. I actually voted
for Clinton in 96 because the thought of Bob Dole
as our leader was depressing. I mean, war hero and
all that, I admire him. But it takes him an hour to
get dressed in the morning because he refuses
help. Thats OK for grandpa, but for the president?
Thats they best they could do for a candidate?
And I really can't stand John McCain, but Obama
seemed so under qualified to do anything, and
his speeches were feel good gobblygook. He would
undo everything Bush did, thats what he ran on. And
look, Gitmo is still there, Patriot Act is still there.
Whats he done? Obama hit the Peter Principle
when he was elected senator. Never let your reach
exceed your grasp..
in 1980. From hokey commercials for Boraxo on
Death Valley Days, the show he hosted in the mid 60's.
If they had the internet in 1980, Reagan would never
have been nominated. They would have played the
clips of him relentlessly on YouTube.
Quote: Wizardthe
Also, could the Supreme Court break such an impasse? Frankly, I still don't know where the Supreme Court got the authority to interfere in how Florida chose its electors in 2000.
I do not believe there is anything that puts the SCOTUS in a position break any deadlock.
IIRC, FL2000 had a few issues the SCOTUS had standing on. One was "equal protection" clause. Despite all votes being counted in FL twice, there was an automatic machine recount the next day, Gore demanded recounts in I think 3 counties. If there was such a thing as a "spoiled ballot" then the people in those three counties would have been given special treatment over the others. Again, this is IIRC, but makes sense.
What I do not get is why do people think that a recount is "right?" Just because you count something the second, third, or more times does not mean that time is not where the error was. If you ever counted inventory in a warehouse-type envrionment you know counting things by hand can give slightly differing results. If you try to "interpert" some stray mark on a ballot as a vote this will keep happening. Why do we assume that if Bush won when you counted 3 times and Gore on the last count that Gore would have been the legit guy?
BTW: As it was, Gore did not win FL no matter how liberal the rules for so-called "spoiled ballots." But still, why do people think this way?
In the uk, you put a cross next to one name. If theres no cross, no vote. Two crosses, no vote. Cross not on box, no vote
Quote: AZDuffman
BTW: As it was, Gore did not win FL no matter how liberal the rules for so-called "spoiled ballots." But still, why do people think this way?
It's because only the recount(s) use actual human intelligence. Just like you'd go find the bin and count by hand if the scanner said the warehouse had 1,000,000 of a specific widget. Legitimate errors are by far the most commonly corrected ballots in the hand-recount process. I want to vote for candidate A, but I circle B instead and then try to correct it. Or I go thinking I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate, and I even start to bubble it in, and then I change my mind and vote for a major party candidate instead. It's amazing what some of the spoiled ballots here in MN said in the 2008 senate race. Several people wrote essays, dozens voted for one candidate then crossed it out and voted for the other, one person voted for Franken and also wrote in a vote for Lizard People.
Quote: thecesspitTwo crosses, no vote
If there's a recount, what happens in the UK of the intention is clear? Like if there's a cross with a "NO!" written next to it, and another cross with a "Yes!" written next to it...will they fix that in the recount process?
Quote: rdw4potusIt's because only the recount(s) use actual human intelligence. Just like you'd go find the bin and count by hand if the scanner said the warehouse had 1,000,000 of a specific widget. Legitimate errors are by far the most commonly corrected ballots in the hand-recount process. I want to vote for candidate A, but I circle B instead and then try to correct it. Or I go thinking I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate, and I even start to bubble it in, and then I change my mind and vote for a major party candidate instead. It's amazing what some of the spoiled ballots here in MN said in the 2008 senate race. Several people wrote essays, dozens voted for one candidate then crossed it out and voted for the other, one person voted for Franken and also wrote in a vote for Lizard People.
But ballots are supposed to be an easy thing to fill out. Check one box, then you are done. Anything more is "guessing" on the part of the judge of the ballot. A machine is the only really fair way to do it. Gore almost succeded in stealing FL, MN was stolen. All because we decide to contest ballots.
I say it again, where I come from if you count three times and get one result and get a different result when you do it the last time you go with the first three, unless you are balancing cash and found the error that was not giving you the desired result. You do not know what the result is supposed to be when you count ballots. MN was given to the guy who was "winner" in the minority of counts but the result was takes because of democrats running the process.
Quote: AZDuffmanMN was given to the guy who was "winner" in the minority of counts but the result was takes because of democrats running the process.
Which democrats running the process are you talking about? I guess the Secy of State is a Dem, but the VAST majority (like 3 out of every 4) county officials involved were Republicans.
And, while ballots should be easy to fill out, they do have major flaws. Among them: hanging chads, and no method for changing your mind. I suppose electronic balloting makes revision easier, but the same people who fail to push the entire chad off of the paper are also afraid of technology.
Quote: rdw4potus
And, while ballots should be easy to fill out, they do have major flaws. Among them: hanging chads, and no method for changing your mind. I suppose electronic balloting makes revision easier, but the same people who fail to push the entire chad off of the paper are also afraid of technology.
Just don't put pencil to paper until you are for sure. I only had one election, 2008 primary. where my ballot was not electronic or the old lever machines. But I still cannot see how many times you can need to change your mind.
Quote: AZDuffmanJust don't put pencil to paper until you are for sure. I only had one election, 2008 primary. where my ballot was not electronic or the old lever machines. But I still cannot see how many times you can need to change your mind.
Where I've seen it a lot is when you're voting across party lines. For example, there were lots of Obama/Coleman/Madia voters in MN3. Many of the contested ballots had been marked for Franken (D/D/D), then crossed out and replaced by a mark for Coleman (D/R/D). I realize that change is the opposite direction of the eventual recount result, but I saw several like that when I followed the recount.
edit: I guess this isn't mind-changing so much as it's absent-mindedness. I do agree that this would be a spectacularly good time to focus, but I think some people get nervous or anxious as well.
Quote: rdw4potus
edit: I guess this isn't mind-changing so much as it's absent-mindedness. I do agree that this would be a spectacularly good time to focus, but I think some people get nervous or anxious as well.
The infamous "butterfly ballot" was claimed a problem in the same way. Republican was listed first, then Democrat going back forever. Idiots just checked the box below the "R" so other people said, without checking their work. I review boring docs daily and still pick out errors. This is for HOURS on end. Eyes glazed over. So it blows my mind they cannot look at a ballot for 30 seconds to fill it out right.
around pretending he was president while the recount was
going on. Picking a cabinet, making remodel plans for the
White House.
Quote: EvenBobMy favorite part of the 2000 election was how Algore went
around pretending he was president while the recount was
going on. Picking a cabinet, making remodel plans for the
White House.
That would seem to be the responsible thing to do. If he'd been declared the winner without having done those things, you'd just say "look at that! He's totally unprepared!!" :-)
