Which polls do you believe?

[jokerswild]

Zogby has the race 48-43 Kerry over Bush.
CNN is plastering 50-46 Bush on all it's affiliated sites.

Bush must still be favored, however, because the votes that really count are 5-4 Republican.

[jdl22]

Actually neither poll matters since the election will come down to electoral college and not popular vote. I think Bush has little chance of winning the popular vote but it's about a coin flip for the electoral college.

[lu_hawk]

If Bush loses the popular vote but wins the presidency can we really just take that? I mean I know it's in the consitution and all but being outvoted twice in a row and winning both times would seem a little anti-democratic.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush loses the popular vote but wins the presidency can we really just take that? I mean I know it's in the consitution and all but being outvoted twice in a row and winning both times would seem a little anti-democratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'd have to change the constitution, we can't do anything about it after the fact. I haven't seen a big movement to change the system, but I haven't followed it so...

Interesting info:
Other presidents who did not win the majority of popular votes:

Year President Percentage of Popular Vote
1824 John Quincy Adams 30.92
1844 James K. Polk 49.54
1848 Zachary Taylor 47.28
1856 James Buchanan 45.24
1860 Abraham Lincoln 39.82
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes 47.95
1880 James Garfield 48.27
1884 Grover Cleveland 48.50
1888 Benjamin Harrison 47.82
1892 Grover Cleveland 46.05
1912 Woodrow Wilson 41.84
1916 Woodrow Wilson 49.24
1948 Harry S. Truman 49.51
1960 John F. Kennedy 49.72
1968 Richard M. Nixon 43.42
1992 Bill Clinton 42.97
1996 Bill Clinton ???

Ten

[lu_hawk]

You're list doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. I am talking about losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college, your list just shows presidents who got less than 50%. There is a big difference.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif harry truman's middle name is S and should not have a period..

gl

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/blush.gif harry truman's middle name is S and should not have a period..

gl

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Kwite Rite. (I fully blame copy/paste)

I was this close to giving my daught a single-letter middle name.

Ten

[luv_the_game]

"If Bush loses the popular vote but wins the presidency can we really just take that? I mean I know it's in the consitution and all but being outvoted twice in a row and winning both times would seem a little anti-democratic. "

It is anti-democratic. That's because the USA was very intentionaly not set up as a democracy. It's a republic. The founding fathers saw that the danger of democracy was mob rule. Just because most people think one way doesn't make it right. At least that was the thought.

[Clarkmeister]

I believe the current betting line.

[daryn]

why exactly should the rule about the electoral college be changed? having the popular vote decide the president makes little sense.

[nothumb]

I'll be very surprised if Kerry wins this election.

I think he'll be significantly ahead in the polls leading up to it though.

NT

[Duke]

If you have a State you want some sort of a say in who the president is. Wyoming is a State and wants a say.

California isn't its own country yet, and it's not really fair to force the choice of a lot of aging hippy liberal douches down everyone else's throat.

It's not like it matters for this election anyhow, Kerry might be a Republican by autumn.

~D

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually neither poll matters since the election will come down to electoral college and not popular vote. I think Bush has little chance of winning the popular vote but it's about a coin flip for the electoral college.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget that in the last days before the 2000 election, it was Gore who was afraid of losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote. So he spread about all sorts of spin as to why we should respect the electoral vote outcome. Then, came a surprise....

Only 3 times in the last 44 elections has the popular loser won the electoral vote. It is not likely to happen in 2004 (maybe a 10% chance).

[lu_hawk]

Would it make more sense to have a president be elected twice in a row, even though he received less votes than his opponent in both elections?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

1824 John Quincy Adams 30.92

Adams actually got fewer electoral votes than Jackson in this election, but neither got a majority. The House of Representatives chose Adams.

1876 Rutherford B. Hayes 47.95

This was the big one. Tilden won a majority of the electoral votes on election day, but somewhere between then and when the electors met to cast their votes, someone "convinced" the Ohio electors to switch their support to Hayes.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

your list just shows presidents who got less than 50%.

Why is that irrelevant? You claimed the result was "undemocratic", but in a democracy you need a *majority* to be the winner. In all the cases he cited, the winners would not have won in a "democratic" election.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It makes sense to either follow the consitution or amend it. Anything else is mob rule.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'll be very surprised if Kerry wins this election.

I won't be. The last election was a virtual tie, nader will be less a factor this time, and the swing states are all close. Barring a major incident that ruins one candidate or the other, the weather in the swing state will determine the winner as I think a big turnout favors Kerry.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
1824 John Quincy Adams 30.92

Adams actually got fewer electoral votes than Jackson in this election, but neither got a majority. The House of Representatives chose Adams.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1824 many state legislatures chose electors and didn't even allow people to cast Presidential votes (this held down Adams vote count since these were mostly Eastern states supportive of him). This is only important to people who claim Jackson should have been President because of the popular vote. Constitutionally, the House had the right to pick regardless of popular vote.

[ QUOTE ]


1876 Rutherford B. Hayes 47.95

This was the big one. Tilden won a majority of the electoral votes on election day, but somewhere between then and when the electors met to cast their votes, someone "convinced" the Ohio electors to switch their support to Hayes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tilden never had a clear majority of electoral votes. In the disputed states there was plenty of fraud on both sides to make a undeniable conclusion of who won impossible.

Please provide us with your info on Ohio. The disputed states were Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Oregon.

[nicky g]

"Why is that irrelevant? You claimed the result was "undemocratic", but in a democracy you need a *majority* to be the winner. In all the cases he cited, the winners would not have won in a "democratic" election. "

That depends on the system. Often you just need the plurality. (Or would you say this is undemocratic?) His point was about when you get fewer votes than another candidate, not less than the majority.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
your list just shows presidents who got less than 50%.

Why is that irrelevant? You claimed the result was "undemocratic", but in a democracy you need a *majority* to be the winner. In all the cases he cited, the winners would not have won in a "democratic" election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democracy does not equal majoritarianism. You are in error.

A Republic is a Democracy, just not a direct democracy, but rather a Democracy with certain rules which are different in each Republic.

I agree with you that we either follow the constitution or we amend it, those are the rules that this Republic follows.

[El Barto]

For the record, niether Gore nor Bush won a majority of the votes in 2000, so both would have been "minority Presidents".

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Perhaps irrelevant was the wrong word. The Electoral College is the means the U.S. uses to address the issue of multiple candidates. Is it flawed? Sure, but probably so are any other solutions. The founders wanted to avoid having the urban population centers dominate the political landscape, and in some ways, any attempt to establish ckecks and balances over the tyranny of the majority is valid.

The problem is that any time it's the party that lost that tries to change the system, it will be viewed as sour grapes, and if the guy that wins suggests it, it will seem like he's saying he doesn't deserve it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please provide us with your info on Ohio.

I must have confused it with the income tax thing. Now that you mention it, Florida was the main state I remember in the dispute.

[Jaycie]

[ QUOTE ]
Please provide us with your info on Ohio.

I must have confused it with the income tax thing. Now that you mention it, [b]Florida[b] was the main state I remember in the dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not Florida again!! What are they too high to read a ballot?

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Would it make more sense to have a president be elected twice in a row, even though he received less votes than his opponent in both elections?

[/ QUOTE ]


yes, because that's the way it is. if people don't like it, it has to be changed. but think about it, what would you change the rule to?

if you just go by popular vote, the candidates could effectively ignore all of middle america and just campaign in all the big cities. the big cities like NY and LA would then effectively pick the president, and you'd get even less representation than before if you live in wyoming.

[nicky g]

"the big cities like NY and LA would then effectively pick the president, and you'd get even less representation than before if you live in wyoming. "

Yeah but they'd be representing more people. Why should someone in Wyoming;s vote effectively count more than someone in New York's? It should be people that vote, not places, right?. Given that more people live in the cities, wouldn;t a city-oriented President's policies benefit more people than a more rural-urban balanced one?(I don;t feel particularly strongly about this; just putting some of the other side of the argument).

Tangentially, IMO a major problem in the developed world including Europe, the US and Japan is that farmers have far too much political clout.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
It should be people that vote, not places, right?.

[/ QUOTE ]



are you arguing with me or against me here? if we use popular vote, then the places will pick the president, not the people. sure, the people who live in the big cities will play a big role, but that leaves out a lot of people who live in middle america.

they would just be ignored by the president, because they can't do much for him in terms of getting elected.

[nicky g]

"f we use popular vote, then the places will pick the president, not the people. "

No, the people will. Most of them will be from certainplaces, but it's still the people. the opposite end of the spectrum would be each state casting a single vote - that would clearly be an instance of places choosing, rather than people.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Tangentially, IMO a major problem in the developed world including Europe, the US and Japan is that farmers have far too much political clout.

Rhetorical question, perhaps (and I don't know my answer yet), but is is possible for the people who produce the world's food to have *too much* clout?

[lu_hawk]

hi daryn,

That's the argument for the electoral college system but I'm not sure I agree with it. The definition of democracy that is used to evaluate the systems in other countries is 'one person, one vote'. It is not 'one state, several electoral college votes' or anything like that. By using an electoral college system you are giving more influence to middle america locations that might otherwise be forgotten, but you are taking away influence from people in the big cities and diluting the 'one person, one vote' principal.

And our governments policies' are not decided just by the president, the middle america locations send senators and congressmen to washington to represent their local interests. And remember that the system of two senators per state regardless of population was put in place to counterbalance the influence of heavily populated states.