posted
With the Presidential Election tightening owing to Gov. Romney's strong and President Obama's equally lackluster debate performance a week ago, I am indeed concerned that we are looking at a "Robamaney" - and our Republic does not need that.
WAZZAT you ask? think "Gorebushoff" or the Y2K disputed Gore-Bush Presidential Election. To this day and likely for many to come, some, and some not even partisans, will contend that George W Bush was selected as the 43rd President when the US Supreme court effectively ruled that Bush won.
With Romney having closed the gap with Obama, I am greatly concerned that "we" will awake November 7 with nothing decided and numerous challenges in the "swing" states being planned. If anyone thought the 2K debacle was a "knock down drag out", I'd dare say "you ain't seen nothing yet". You can be sure that the factions, such as the so-called TEA Party, that have had the stated goal of defeating Obama are not about to say "for the good of the country, let's accept the people have spoken" such as did Nixon during 1960 when Kennedy carried Illinois, and with that the election, under questionable circumstances.
According to pollsters and pundits, there is no way, short of something like an "Obama safe" state like Illinois going for Romney, that an electoral college tie could come about; the House of Representatives (in which Romney would win) will be out of the picture. Rather the US Supreme Court will step forth and, given the leanings of the nine Justices, rule Romney the winner.
But again, we end up with a "selected" president and we will again be the laughingstock of the world. Emerging democracies will start inviting Vladimir Putin to oversee their elections rather than Jimmy Carter.
All I can say is "may the best man win" - and with enough popular vote to ensure no rerun of Y2K.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
And what did you mean "But again, we end up with a "selected" president". I do not remember any time in our history where we had a selected President.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No President was "selected" in 2000. Algore, Jr. attempted to steal the election and the USSC shot him down.
I know "selected" is a well-known liberal myth, but it is just a myth.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe after all of these years that there are people who still believe that the 2000 election was "stolen". If you REALLY study it closely and follow just the facts and nothing else, it is obvious that Bush legally won. SCOTUS did not select the president--the voters voted him in. It's so funny to me to see this pop up again and again---the facts simply do not reflect this at all.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: If we wake up on November 7th with another Bush v Gore, I think I'll be sick. We do not need to go through that garbage again.
BTW, I have never considered or thought this through----is an electoral college "tie" mathematically possible?
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to statistician Nate Silver, the probability of an Electoral College tie today is 1.2%. This is actually higher than the probability of either candidate winning by a landslide (Obama 0.9%, Romney 0.4%). His 538 blog is named after the total number of Electoral votes. There are actually several scenarios by which a tie could occur.
In a tie, Romney would probably win because the incoming House chooses the President.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: No President was "selected" in 2000. Algore, Jr. attempted to steal the election and the USSC shot him down.
I know "selected" is a well-known liberal myth, but it is just a myth.
I had trouble believing that anyone would without shame claim in essence, "I would have won the state except many of the people who would have voted for me did not because they were too dumb to punch the right spot on the card."
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney supporters should be pleased to know that, last evening, "libby" PBS pundit John McLaughlin predicted Romney will win.
We should note that, even though I regularly watch his show (it is also carried in this market by Comcast On-Demand), McLaughlin is not always on the mark. During Summer 2011, he predicted that Obama would step aside in favor of Hillary. Obviously, he was mistaken; however, I must admit, as Bill Clinton at the DNC was up there "warmin' 'em up" for the Obama nomination and Bill lets loose with the line (to the effect of) "Well, folks, I do have someone in mind for President....", I'm still thinking of a 1968 LBJ "I shall not seek, nor will I accept...." moment.
For the record, and it was noted on a voice tape I had sent my Mother and Father during March 1968, but in their hands prior, that I called it LBJ would not run. Two of my "Nam buds" also know I made that call as early as Oct 1967, but alas Tommy is "six feet UNOWARE" and "Moore" is I know not.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears that some pollsters are now holding that a 269-all electoral tie is possible. Apparently there is some combination of "safe + swing" states that could result in such occurring.
I fear for our Republic second only to another "Gorebushoff", or this time a "Robamaney", if this unfortunate event comes to pass. Times columnist Maureen Dowd takes a seriocomic look at such:
If Romney does suspend voter disbelief enough to tie President Obama, with each getting 269 Electoral College votes, the Republican-controlled House would determine the president — and give it to Mitt. And the (presumably) Democratic-controlled Senate would determine the vice president — and give it to Joe Biden.
So the first election decided by Congress in more than a century would produce a Republican president handcuffed to a Democratic vice president.
I think we can count on good ol’ Joe to devote himself to tormenting President Mittens. When Romney begins his “I, Willard ...” at the inauguration, Joe can howl like a banshee, “That’s a bunch of malarkey!”
When Biden sits behind Romney at his first State of the Union address, in that familiar tiered TV shot, the vice president can guffaw and roll his eyes and slap his knee and put his head in his hands and wave a sign behind Mitt’s slick head that reads, “Bunch of stuff.” I think we can count on Joe to ignore an enraged Tagg shaking his fist from the gallery
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am getting very excited! We will soon have the RailForum election results, as well as the national vote in just 12 more days!!! I can't wait----I'm on pins and needles!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm Not. I'm going bow hunting tomorrow for 3 days... Deer, hog or turkey; all three are tasty!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have now learned (NBC News) that in Ohio - the state often noted as that on which the election rides - votes cast away from polling places, i.e. absentee, expat and tourists through consulates, military and Foreign Service (or any Federal employee regardless of agency posted overseas), will not begin to be counted until Nov 17.
May as well go to bed at my usual 845P November 6; get ready for "Robamaney".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I'm Not. I'm going bow hunting tomorrow for 3 days... Deer, hog or turkey; all three are tasty!
Have fun! I've had hog and turkey of course, but never venison. Does it "taste like chicken" or does it have its own unique taste?
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN: We better not have a "Robameny". The country is so incredibly divided and upset right now--that would just be fanning the flames in a drastic manner. I like how we are able to have a peaceful transition of power, and I'd like it to remain that way. Another argument about who really won would drag us down lower than the gutter. I still predict a very easy win for Romney. I just don't see Americans being that stupid two elections in a row.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wholly with you there, Mr. Smith - and just might be with you on Nov 6 as well.
So far as a phalanx of M1A1's surrounding The White House, Blair House, and the Capitol come January 20; that kind of stuff hopefully stays in the heads of filmakers and/or Tom Clancy. "Get out of Dick Cheney's house...." was bad enough twelve years ago.
Oh and venison, "gamey"; sort of like comparaing phesant with turkey.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Venison will not taste gamey IF it is processed correctly. A doe or a young buck is ready to go as soon as you process the meat. An older buck must be "seasoned" in a 40 degree walk-in cooler for a few weeks to make it "not chewy".
What does it taste like? Maybe a good veal or a lighter beef. Never cook venison beyond medium. It will get chewy if well done.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would LOVE it if Obama won the Electoral vote while losing the popular vote, because only after both parties got screwed in recent time would any move be made to get rid of the Electoral college. Or at least reform it, with Electoral votes allocated proportiately by each state. Finally, one person, one vote!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not done an in-depth study of the electoral college, but I'm wondering what you mean, Jerome, when you say that electoral votes should be allocated proportionally by each state? I thought that's the way it was already set up.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 538 Electoral Votes are allocated amongst the States and certain Possessions based on the number of Members (both houses) each state has in Congress. Therefore there is a minmimum of three electoral votes - even if a state has only a population of, say, 500,000. Within a state, they are free to allocate those votes as seen fit through enacted legislation. However, all states except Nebraska uses "winner takes all". Nebraska allocates among each legislative district, therefore, instead of a "swing state", there can be "swing districts".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, GBN. So then the electoral college IS allocated proportionally, correct? I'm not sure what Jerome is referring to.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maine, like Nebraska, also allocates electoral votes by Congressional District.
I would guess that "allocated proportionally" would imply that the candidate gets the same proportion of electoral votes from a state as the proportion of voters in that state who voted for that candidate. This would be different than the current "winner take all" method where the candidate who gets 51% of a state's votes gets 100% of the state's electoral votes.
In the case of heavily Republican Nebraska(5 votes), Romney could win 75% of the statewide vote but the congressional district containing Omaha could go 51% for Obama. Romney thus gets 4 electoral votes and Obama one. This is, in fact, what happened in 2008. Even this is not strictly proportional.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, TwinStar. Nebraska's example is what I was referring to. Under the current system, Everyone in Texas who votes for Obama "wasted his vote". So did everyone in New York who votes for Romney.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be said that it unfair that my vote will simply be a symbol to whom I wish to entrust the affairs of state for the next four years whereas Mr. Nicholson's vote could actually decide who they will be entrusted to. I vote in a "mock election"; he votes in the real deal.
Not fair, but life.
Of course, in a post-"Citizens United" world, the parties that are prepared to pay any sum necessary to have "their man" elected, the electoral college system means their efforts will, in this case, be limited only to seven states. I'm sure, of course, media outlets would welcome, again post-Citizens United, abolition (constitutional amendment needed) of the electoral college system.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
From a review of the material, one learns that only once has there been an electoral tie. That was during 1800 with Jefferson-Burr.
During 1824 when there were four "major" candidates running. No one had an electoral college majority. The House voted for John Quincy Adams.
There have been three cases in which the popular vote went one way, but the electoral college went the other:
1876 Rutherford Hayes 1888 Benjamin Harrison 2000 George W Bush
Now the surprise (or at least to me; guess I was asleep in US History). When the House (newly elected) votes for President it's not a case of 218 takes it, but rather there is one vote per state delegation - fight it out amongst yourselves. The Senate voting for Vice President is "one man one vote", but if deadlocked, the sitting Vice-President casts the tie breaker.
Let's hope not; we could be sitting atop a constitutional crisis that would top "Gorebushoff" (OK; Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)) and US v.Nixon.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bring it on!!! It's high time this electoral anachronism was tossed in the trash heap of history where it belongs! What possible benefit does it give to our polital system?
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jerome: What type of system would you like to see put into place in lieu of the electoral college?
I'm trying to figure out how to have a system that does not rely upon the west and east coast states, while ignoring everybody else. Our Founding Fathers were some very smart cookies.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: First, memo to the Smith Brothers; this is objective journalism. You will not be polluted with Times opinion:
Interesting article. But here is how I see things from my left coast perch: All of these things will become moot on November 6th. Why?? Simple---the election will not be close. Obama can not even get above the magical number of 50% in likability polls. If he can't achieve that, then in my opinion, it is one more indicator that this will be a crystal clear slam dunk for Romney. I know what all of the so-called "experts" are saying about the election and the poll numbers, but I will continue to state on the record that I simply don't believe them. I think they are all off in la-la land, and they have not been paying attention to how unpopular Obama has become. Hardcore leftists will never change---their votes are solid for Obama. But there are a lot of conservative Democrats, Independents, and GBN's out there who haven't made up their minds yet. I feel very confident in saying that the majority of these folks will vote for Romney.
And the beauty of all of my predictions??? Here it is---I will either be proven to be a fool who has misread everything, or I will be proven to be one of the few smart ones around who truly understands what's going on, despite what the pollsters say. I will either be vindicated or shamed seven days from today!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I am sticking to my 322 electoral votes for Romney, although I might be low...
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I recognize and respect that the election did not turn out to everyone's satisfaction - after all, the Daley Machine is gone ("Richard The First" died in office 1976; "Richard the Second" abdicated 2011) - and there the election always turned out to everyone's satisfaction (just drop that piece of paper that has already been marked up for you in the box - afterwards, bring the ballot back they gave you and then the precinct captain has some "refreshments" for you and the others).
However, thankfully the concerns expressed within the opening of this topic did not materialize.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
