Faithless voter may cost Bush.

[lorinda]

West Virginia has/will have an Electoral College Republican who has said he may not vote for Bush.

story (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9522&fcategory_desc=Under%20Rep orted)

If it's a tie, the whole election could change on one man's decision.

Lori

[W00lygimp]

If he votes democraft, I wouldn't be surprised to see a roadside bomb "magically" make it from Iraq and into the guys living room.

[JimBob2232]

While this guy no doubt has serious problems with bush (as do many of us republicans), I find it VERY hard to believe in a 269-269 tie he will cast the deciding vote to kerry.

I dont think this is going to be an issue. But regardless, this is electoral reform that we need.

[InchoateHand]

with your red armband?

[Dynasty]

While he may not vote for Bush in the Electoral College, he has never suggested he would vote for Kerry. I think the idea is that he will abstain or make some vote for a 3rd candidate (not necessarily somebody who is running).

A Presidential canididate must get 270 votes to win the Electoral College. Kerry couldn't win a 269-268-1 vote. That scenario would still end up with the election being decided in the House of Representatives in Bush's favor.

[JimBob2232]

Interesting. So in a hypothetical 3 person race where the candidate who has the backing of the house does poorly and the remaining 2 candidates do something like 220/230EV, the candidate with the least amount of electoral votes can be elected? That seems like an ugly scenario and smoething we might want to look into.

[Nicholasp27]

so voting libertarian is voting to give control of the election to congress, in this case most likely republican...

the libertarian voters would be ecstatic to win 20 or so electoral votes...until they realize that because of those 20, it left kerry with only 265 votes, so W would be voted in by Congress...

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
That scenario would still end up with the election being decided in the House of Representatives in Bush's favor.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you sure that would happen? Just because they are Republicans, that does not neccesarily mean they want Bush in office.

[Nicholasp27]

even if they don't personally vote for W, they prolly would if in the house if it came to that, as it would be political suicide to vote against W as a republican...they'd lose their party's support and never be able to get back to Congress...so unless they are already contemplating retirement, they'd prolly go W, no matter what

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That scenario would still end up with the election being decided in the House of Representatives in Bush's favor.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you sure that would happen? Just because they are Republicans, that does not neccesarily mean they want Bush in office.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have to choose among the top three vote getters in the Electoral College. So, I think Bush will squeak through.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That scenario would still end up with the election being decided in the House of Representatives in Bush's favor.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you sure that would happen? Just because they are Republicans, that does not neccesarily mean they want Bush in office.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is some funny chit you just posted Salt. LMAO

[Manimal 42]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure that would happen? Just because they are Republicans, that does not neccesarily mean they want Bush in office.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is up to the House to decide, they vote by state delegations not individual votes. GOP is the majority in 30 states in the house and I believe there would be enough peer pressure and party dicipline (if not outright intimidation) to get dubya the win.

*ick!*

[andyfox]

If such a scenario played out, then I think that would be the only chance for the electoral college to be dumped: suppose Kerry wins the popular vote, and wins the electoral college vote 269-268-1. And yet Bush becomes president because the Republicans control the House. Yikes!

[Utah]

Dont forget that under this scenario Andy Fox would also lose a bet /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If such a scenario played out, then I think that would be the only chance for the electoral college to be dumped: suppose Kerry wins the popular vote, and wins the electoral college vote 269-268-1. And yet Bush becomes president because the Republicans control the House. Yikes!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. A 269-269 vote has an excellent chance of creating the momentum to change the Electoral College.

A couple weeks ago I read an article about how the Electoral College was almost successfully changed after the 1968 election. It wasn't the small states which were against the change. They supported it. The change was held up by Strom Thurmond in a Senate fillibuster. Thurmond was backed up by other Deep South states.

[JimBob2232]

The Electoral college is a good system, but does need soem updating/modernizing. Requiring electors to vote as they are selected is one. This needing a majority and not a plurality is another, unless you wanted to have a run off election in such an event.

[Nicholasp27]

the thing is, if they got rid of the electoral college, then voter turnout would probably rise, as many right now are like "my vote doesn't matter cause i'm in a non-swing state" so they don't vote

this would cause many more democrats to be elected, as the majority of the country (and all registered voters) is democrat, not republican

[andyfox]

How could I even pretend to forget? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,
Andy

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
even if they don't personally vote for W,

[/ QUOTE ]

How many Republicans in the House are voting for Kerry do you think?

[ QUOTE ]
they prolly would if in the house if it came to that, as it would be political suicide to vote against W as a republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans in the House would be ecstatic at the opportunity to put Bush in the White House. You guys make it sound like some would bend to intimidation tactics. The idea of Republicans in the House being intimidated into voting for Bush seems a tad looney to me.

[andyfox]

Here is the relevant section:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes 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, 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.

Some thoughts:

-There is no requirement for the electors to be elected. They can be appointed (by the governor? by the state legislature?)

-It was apparently expected that the electors from each state would not necessarily be unanimous in their choice.

-While it says the House of Represntatives shall vote, if no candidate has a majority of electoral votes, each "state" having one vote, it says nothing about representatives in the House that are not from states. It wouldn't make any difference this year, since Republicans control an absolute majority of the state delegations. But suppose the each controlled 25. Do only states get votes? Washington D.C., American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have representatives in the House. Do they get a vote? [They're all Democrat right now.]