Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so is that truely official? because I have not really looked into it yet.
is the Senate bound between the two candidates that are tied? or can they just go some other direction?
If no candidate for Vice President receives a majority of Electoral College votes, the Senate votes on the top two (regardless of whether or not they are tied), with a simply majority vote by at least two-thirds of the Senate required for selection.
... and another prediction: If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect several weeks' worth of voluminous, hysterical posts from righties (a) demanding recounts, (b) accusing the Democrats of voter fraud, and/or (c) insisting that electors don't really have to vote the way their states did.
... and another prediction: If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect several weeks' worth of voluminous, hysterical posts from righties (a) demanding recounts, (b) accusing the Democrats of voter fraud, and/or (c) insisting that electors don't really have to vote the way their states did.
That's exactly what they planned in 2000. Remember, even though it was Gore who lost the College while winning the vote, prior to the election it was Republicans who were worried that it might happen to Bush.
To stop Gore under those circumstances, advisers to the Bush campaign weighed the possibility of challenging the legitimacy of a popular-vote loser gaining the White House.
"The one thing we don't do is roll over -- we fight," said a Bush aide, according to an article by Michael Kramer in the New York Daily News on Nov. 1, a week before the election.
The article reported that "the core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course. In league with the campaign -- which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness -- a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged."
"We'd have ads, too," said a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."
The Bush strategy to challenge the Electoral College went even further. "Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can," the article said. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asked a Bush adviser.
The Bush strategy also would target the members of the Electoral College, the 538 electors who are picked by the campaigns and state party organizations to go to Washington for what is normally a ceremonial function. Many of the electors are not legally bound to a specific candidate. Another article describing the Republican thinking appeared in The Boston Herald on Nov. 3. It also quoted Republican sources outlining plans to rally public sentiment against Gore’s election if he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote.
“The Bush camp, sources said, would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people’s will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic,†said the article by Andrew Miga.
“One informal Bush adviser, who declined to be named, predicted Republicans would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Bush won the popular vote but was denied the presidency,†the article said.
Of course, as soon as Bush benefitted from the Electoral College, Republicans did a 180 and acted like it was the greatest innovation in the history of the world...
Of course, as soon as Bush benefitted from the Electoral College, Republicans did a 180 and acted like it was the greatest innovation in the history of the world...
Likewise, we can expect lots of new-found support among Republicans for the National Popular Vote initiative, which they have heretofore spurned.
... and another prediction: If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect several weeks' worth of voluminous, hysterical posts from righties (a) demanding recounts, (b) accusing the Democrats of voter fraud, and/or (c) insisting that electors don't really have to vote the way their states did.
I think weeks would be greatly optimistic. Certain members of this forum will be claiming that Obama "stole" the election and had it rigged from the start for the next five years. Five years because they'll be complaining that the next Democratic candidate is will use the same 'tactics.'
If no candidate for Vice President receives a majority of Electoral College votes, the Senate votes on the top two (regardless of whether or not they are tied), with a simply majority vote by at least two-thirds of the Senate required for selection.
George Bush has now been blamed for the outcome of this election... BEFORE this election.
If you'll go back read that post very closely, you'll find that George W. Bush is not being blamed for anything whatsoever related to this election.
Oh, but I forgot: history began on January 21, 2009, and just because the Rs considered trying shenanigans in 2000, there's absolutely no reason to believe they might do the same this time around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
