posted on December 9, 2000 01:40:56 PMNetworker67 nothing would stop any special interest group from creating their own voter database and encouraging voters to vote via absentee ballot. That the law specifically allows this as was illustrated in the trial. Just make certain that you don't use the same printer that the Republican Party used.
posted on December 9, 2000 01:48:45 PM
Your question made me wonder whether the various poster's to this thread would have different opinions under this scenario:
Presidential election in the year 2004. The democratic candidate wins Seminole County, Florida due to an unprecedented absentee ballot turnout generated in part by a NAACP voter drive. Unfortunately, someone messed up and used the same idiot printer used by the Republican Party in the 2000 election.
Sandra Gourd (re-elected as Supervisor of Elections in a landslide in 2002) mindfull of the mess she got into in 2000 allows NAACP workers to correct absentee ballot requests.
Disgrunted republican voter Dr. Beetle files a lawsuit attempting to have all absentee ballots in Seminole County thrown out. He says it was unfair and the votes are tainted.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:19:30 PM
Dr. Beetle - I got two answers for you. One based on your exact circumstances (number 1 below). The other changing your circumstances to reflect that the current mess never occured by the time we get to 2004 (number 2 below).
1. Since we already have two court rulings in this matter and American Jurisprudence is based entirely on Precedent. Well we have to accept that someone learned something from the events of 2000.
But being the undercover racist institution that America can be. Rest assured that some Judge would throw out the ballots because they were Blacks not voting Republican.
2. If 2000 had of never occured and the NAACP case was the first time it occurred. I would have to feel that something is a miss with allowing someone to alter applications after the fact. Because after all the applications contain signatures that certify that the information is correct.
But I say again.
But being the undercover racist institution that America can be. Rest assured that some Judge would throw out the ballots because they were Blacks not voting Republican. And instead of wrist slapping as in this case. Somebody would be imprisoned.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:56:21 PM
Networker~ A bit paranoid dontcha think?
Just because you are a recipient of the NAACP mailing it is automatically presumed one is black? Huh, come on. Interest groups wishing to send out mailings BUY mailing lists all the time based on various features of the list known as demographics.
Who says everyone on the Dems lists is a Dem and everyone of the Repubs list is a Repub? In my home state one can change party affiliation pretty much ANYTIME.
I get AARP mailings all the time and guess what, I don't qualify and won't for some time.
Big brother is not out to get you YET. With America's lack of privacy laws (unlike Germany or Switzerland)that could change. For the moment, it has not.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:20:36 PM
dejavu - I wil assume you haven't been reading this thread very long or you just saw something posted by in reply to a hypothesis posted by Dr. Beetle and just had to say something.
Go back re-read the thread from page three forward and then make a off topic comment like the one you just made. Acknowledging undercover racism in America has nothing to do with paranoria and a lot to do with fact.
The NAACP question by Dr. Beetle if you had of bothered to read the thread is in reply to something posted earlier by me. And he wanted to gather my views if the matter was reversed hence his question. So it really really helps if people would read these threads as opposed to seeing something in one post and deciding to have something to say. Which by the way if the person read the thread wouldn't sound like they just woke up and haven't had their coffee.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:27:46 PM
[i]But being the undercover racist institution that America can be. Rest assured that some Judge would throw out the ballots because they were Blacks not voting Republican. And instead of wrist slapping as in this case. Somebody would be imprisoned.
[/i]
nw67, Your questionable suggestions to overturn the Constitution to the contrary, to date I've given you the benefit of the doubt and seriously addressed your questions and concerns in this and other threads. The statement you make in your last post, as dejavu has observed, is so sweepingly dismissive not only of virtually everyone that is not black or a Democrat, but of our entire system of government, that I would be remiss if I didn't set that "benefit of the doubt" aside for good.
I suggest that before you make any further comments you'd like taken seriously, you measure your words more carefully, because with remarks like your last one, the only notable differentiation between you and the survivalists in Montana is your party affiliation.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:31:20 PM
HCQ~ Thank you for *getting* my point. I'll go out and get some coffee (and read)now as NW67 thinks it will improve my comprehension....
posted on December 9, 2000 03:39:49 PM
Remember the surprise that Jeb Bush had submitted the state electors so early as to be called premature? That document that I posted soon after it's submission on the 19th?
Well, now the link shows a document submitted on the 26th, and it's quite a different document.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:59:27 PM
Okay Networker67 finish your answer. Earlier in this thread you were perfectly willing to disenfranchise entire counties in Florida with your "lose your electoral votes" scheme. Would that proposal still be a just solution to the voter fraud perpetrated by the NAACP?
posted on December 9, 2000 07:17:27 PM
Networker67,
The word is spelled partisan, not partisian.
As you are finished with your history lecture I'll now re-iterate my point about the real means of balancing the power among the states.
The Senate, with its restriction of two Senators per State means that California (the most populous State in the Union) has no more influence in the Senate than a state like Delaware or Rhode Island (two of the least populous States in the Union).
There is no other governmental "vehicle" that seeks to balance the States. The House clearly doesn't since it is based on population. California has 52 Representatives in the House while the least populous States have only 1 Representative.
Because laws have to pass both Houses the most populous States cannot simply gang up on the other States. That is possible in the House of Representatives but it isn't possible in the Senate.
All other government offices are National in nature and are not based on the States or their populations relative to each other.
posted on December 9, 2000 07:50:33 PM
code - first off you didn't raise your hand and second thanks for the spell check. But its obvious to me that they teach you guys in the South a different version of the Constitution than they do up here. But then again you guys down there also thought Slavery was an issue for an individual State to make and started our Nations Bloodiest Conflict to defend that right.
I await your historical rebuttal to that fact of American History but then again you managed to get the name of the War Changed. So you might have managed to change the underlying catalyst that started it too.
While I'm thumping history. I guess Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Plessey vs. Ferguson are IYHO outstanding examples of The Supreme Courts ability to interpret the Constitution. Heck I said this to another poster. So I'll say it you, we just got a fair interpretation under the Constitution in the last 46 years. So don't try and give me a lesson about it. I know both the beauty of its freedoms and the ugliness of its terrible interpretations.
On another note Montana and Delaware would have made better choices than Delaware and Rhode Island since Rhode Island has two Congressional districts. Delaware and Alaska only have one respectively. I guess your terrible census information offsets my at times terrible spelling.
posted on December 9, 2000 09:07:46 PM
Networker67,
What has where I happen to live anything at all to do with this discussion?
Could I have a simple answer to this question...
Is not the Senate (with each State holding two seats) the means by which the Founding Fathers sought to balance the power of the States relative to each other?
posted on December 9, 2000 09:24:26 PM
Networker67,
"If there wasn't an electoral college given the current demographics of the United States. The presidency could possibly always be decided by the residents of just 12 or so States."
"Now back to the college the word in my post demographics, it is a very important word because the 12 states you just named almost never would vote the same way."
Care to name the 12 or so States that could possibly always decide the Presidential race if the Electoral College were abolished?
You completely overlook the import of the "winner take all" effect in the Electoral College system. Nearly every State votes all of its Electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the State.
The only way just 12 or so States could possibly always decide the Presidential election is through the Electoral College, not through the popular vote.
posted on December 9, 2000 11:01:35 PM
code - This is my final reply to you becuase you seem more intent on just speaking to hear yourself than to address the issue. So if you don't know the 12 States whose popular vote could decide the Presidency with a decent voter turnout. Then you are not as intelligent as you wish the auctionwatch comunity to perceive you as.
But I'll help you find the answer so you can stop bugging me. Write to the census bureau and order a copy of the Statistical Abstract of The United States.
Stop using the excerpts found in any Almanac or bits and pieces posted here and there on the web and read the whole thing for yourself. When you get done come back and hopefully the current president will be selected and this thread will have faded into cyber nothingness
But wait that sugestion might goad you into your usual cocky stance that you were right.
Can't have you thinking that it might make you happy. SO here's your answer complete with some numbers for support
And to be more factual don't need 12 states can do it with exactly 10 and they are, CA, NY,TX,FL,PA,IL,OH,MI,NJ,NC sorry your home didn't make the cut. These 10 States populations exceed 50% of that of the Country. Contrary to what you might beleive old nemesis. Its a big Country we just don't actually occupy a large part of it.
Now for some really slap you in the face data. California is the Home to approximately 12% of the United States Population but they make up 15% of the registered voters. Now let's address those voter registrations. Those 10 States are the home of over 104,641,168 registered voters. With a 70% turnout you have over 73,250,000 votes. Guess what in the 1996 elections, only 94,686,514 votes were cast period in the election.
Now those same 10 States have only 257 electoral votes between them. They are missing 13 votes to determine the President under the soon to be changed college composition. I initially said 12 but I knew all along it was only 10. Thus the electoral college stops the 10 most populous states from forming a quorum to pick the President.
Now guess what if we tossed Florida and North Carolina from the mix due to being Southern States and replaced them with Indiana and Massachusetts. We still have enough popular votes to determine the president but we lose 15 electoral votes. dropping us to 243. Guess what Texas thinks it stands alone. We'll Kick them out of the 10 and pick up Washington. We still have enough popular votes with a 70% turnout but we just lost 21 electoral votes dropping us to 221. The other 40 States don't have enough popular votes to stop us but they beat us in the college with a whopping 317 votes.
Sorry buddy in your zeal to try and prove me wrong you overlooked that we are both right. The electoral college preserves the States ability to equally choose the President. The Senate preserves the balance of power in Congress for day to day affairs. But since I said the college was created for a measure of equality in choosing President you wasted precious brain cells that at your age you don't have too many left, trying to prove me wrong. Which by this post you failed terribly at yet again. Let me guess you will find a few typos to give yourself a sense of vindication. Feel free if it makes you feel better.
In fact since you brought it up trying to impress the auctionwatch community with your ability to prove networker67 wrong. You forget something else that the Senate was set up to do by the founding fathers. Since the House serves 2 year terms and the President 4 year terms. By serving 6 year terms the Senate also serves as stability and longevity in The Federal Government.
But your zeal in posting makes you tend to forget key facts that really would show case your many talents and great knowledge of a lot of things. But since you use them for a silly reason. Trying to one up me on a regular basis your haste to do that often clouds your judgement and reveals your true motives to all. Gee buddy its been over 6 months bury that ebay Q and A hatchet and use that knowledge to help and partcipate in spirited conversation on matters. Trying to one up me is a task you are not capable of completing. Well let's close with this You Can't Touch This
posted on December 10, 2000 09:59:57 AM
Networker67,
So what if 10 or 12 States contain more than 50% of the population or even the registered voter population or even the voters who actually vote.
Those 10 or 12 States are certainly not going to vote 100% for a single candidate. Or even 90% or 80% or 70%.
The simple fact is that the most populous States are more diverse demographically and politically than the States with small populations.
And it stands to reason that large pluralities for a candidate will occur in the less diverse States in terms of demographics than in the more diverse States.
Thus, your list (whatever list) of 10 States is more apt to breakdown in a popular vote along a 50-50 or somewhat close to 50-50 percentage while the other States may in fact breakdown in a popular vote with a much higher percentage for a particular candidate.
The only way that 10 (or 12) States can control the Presidential election is via the Electoral college where the winner of the popular vote in a State gets all of that States electoral votes and the considerable percentage of voters for the losing candidate in effect have no say when the Electoral College meets.
The Electoral College does not preserve any sense of equality between the States in the election.
Your original statement that I questioned you on was that you believed the Electoral College preserved a sense of equality between the States and that a popular vote would not.
A popular vote would take the States completely out of the picture since each vote would count the same no matter where it was cast.
In effect, a popular vote would preserve the sense of fairness between individual voters.
posted on December 10, 2000 10:38:22 AM
Well I've given you the data from the Statistical Abstract of The United States. And you still muse from a wrap sense of rambling with no fact or numbers to support those ramdom ramblings.
With that we can close this discussion because you are wrong and nothing you post from this point is of any matter to me. On the same note, I took the time to show that the last election nationwide which by the way was only a 45.7% turnout nationally. Came up with 96,456,345 votes cast period.
So if you just want to think you are right by all means be right in your own mind. Live in the closet of your own rightness. However stay in that closet and don't try to disrupt threads with it. So you have a great Holiday Season.
And since I only went as far as 70% voter turn out for a single candidate. Which by the way give the partisan nature of American politics is very conceiveable to occur. Why do you think the threshhold for third parties to get money from the National Presidential Fund was lowered. It was a mere check and balance to preserve a party from trying it.
So I say again and close live in that closet and I'll catch you later.
posted on December 11, 2000 08:14:29 AM
Well the Seminole and Martin cases are before the Florida Supreme. No one expcts them to be overturned by the Florida Supreme but if they are. It will be to send the US Supreme a strong message that they are tasked with the responsibility of interpreting the Florida Constitution and Statues and the ambuigity of those laws.
And since Bush has argued that these votes entered due to an irregular changing of the process to accomodate a politcal party's error on applications they sent to voters. The premise the voter shouldn't be penalized is a good defense but in light of asking voters to be penalized because a machine couldn't read a ballot which can be read by a human to meet the standard of the recently changed Florida Law. I can't see any possible argument by Bush lawyers to overturn or appeal it to the US Supreme. Unless they really want to enter to the realm of our errors/mistakes are valid any one elses are invalid.
posted on December 11, 2000 08:37:22 AM
Dr. Beetle under how I proposed to deduct Florida's electorate. The reduced number is coming from Miami-Dade any right now. Remember where the electorate comes from Congressional Representation. As such Miami Dade represents about 20% of the Florida population which means there are at least 6 Congressional seats in the area. So if the NAACP did it and it was an issue. I am all for equality under the law.
But since you put your instance in the frame of 2004. Like I pojnted out earlier, we have the current precendent that it perfectly okay for that to occur and no votes will be lost. So the law in 2004 will be on anyones side that decides to do it.
With that said my radical solution to end what I view as partisan fixes to ensure the State is delivered to Bush. The bottom line is votes should be counted if there is ambuiguty under the law the Republicans should blame themselves for changing the law to its current ambiguous state. But that ambiguity was placed there intentionally.
So the legislature created the environment for this situation. And you beleive that all of this just so happen to conveinently occur just before such ambuigity wold benefit a Republican in a close race.
posted on December 11, 2000 11:29:52 AM
Networker67,
"Those 10 States are the home of over 104,641,168 registered voters. With a 70% turnout you have over 73,250,000 votes. Guess what in the 1996 elections, only 94,686,514 votes were cast period in the election."
"On the same note, I took the time to show that the last election nationwide which by the way was only a 45.7% turnout nationally. Came up with 96,456,345 votes cast period."
So data from the Statistical Abstract of The United States changes that drastically in the 24 hours between your two posts citing the data?
Getting back to my original question to you. You contend that the Electoral College preserves a sense of fairness between the States. Most folks would interpret that statement to mean that a handful (anything substantially less than 25 States or 50% of the States) of States could not dictate the Presidential election.
I have shown how the 12 most populous States could do just that. All you have shown in rebuttal is that 10 States could not. With the specious argument that certain of the more populous States would never vote the same as other populous States.
Are you arguing that the Electoral College is fair to the States because 10 States can't elect the President regardless of how the other 40 States vote?
posted on December 11, 2000 11:59:56 AM
Code - You need a life, but I will clarify one thing. The 94 million number is from the Statistcal Abstract of the US. The 96 milion number is from the 1999 Time Almanac. Now you can write to the Time Warner Corporation and ask them to explain the 2 million or so vote difference. It is irrevelent to me. The popular vote of 10 States can be shifted to determine a President. The electoral vote of 12 States could also determine the President. However my premise absent the college is possible because I used 10 States that could share a poltical agenda absent the college. You used 12 States under the college that historically have never shared a poltical agenda.
To fortify my argument I even threw out the three Southern States to ensure the possiblility of an identical political agenda. So like I said before in determining the President of The United States The electoral college preserves a sense of equality among the States. Heck I even have two Amendments to the Constitution itself that supports and adds even more creedence to the my argument. We go to first the 12th Amendment which rewrote the method of chosing the President, And we then advance to the 23rd Amendment which gave The District of Columbia electors.
You are stll stuck on your personal having something to say. But you still aren't saying anything that lends any creedence to the thread itself. So back to the closet and maybe this time we'll get someone to lock the door and keep you there.
posted on December 11, 2000 02:33:28 PM
Networker67,
Your premise that 10 States could shift the election if it were a popular vote versus my premise that 12 States could elect the President via the Electoral College is no proof that the popular vote is less fair than the Electoral College vote.
Indeed, the popular vote would be more fair, since each voter has precisely the same impact as any other voter.
And with the Electoral College system there is no need for the 12 States I mentioned to vote overwhelmingly for one candidate as your popular vote hypothesis requires. Suppose the "non Southern" States in that list vote as you suggest and the "Southern" States in that list return razor thin margins for the same candidate as the other States. That is a much more plausible scenario than the rather contrived example you cite that requires a voter turnout on an order not justified by the past history of voter turnout.
You quoted a 45.7% turnout in the 1996 election and hypothesize a 70% turnout among the 10 States you cite for the same candidate. You are asking us to accept a 25% increase in the average turnout in those States with a huge percentage of those voters all voting for one candidate. Very unrealistic.
posted on December 11, 2000 03:45:35 PMDr. Beetle Are you still around, I'd like to get back to your questioning of not admitting the Florida Electorate with the election question as of yet unanswered. In both 1868 and 1872, electoral votes from States were not counted. So we already have history to deny admission to the college of a State or States. In 1868 23 votes were not counted. And in 1872 17 votes were not counted. Granted that was the Reconstruction Period and the specific reasons are different than today's reasons but it has been done. And I see no reason to not do it again since it is obvious that we have a Party willing to IMHO violate the 15th Amendment Rights of Voters to ensure a victory.
Surely even you must agree that the Right To Vote Entails a Right to Have It Counted If It Is Reasonable to Count It. I have seen allegations by the Bush Team in Argument that the voters themselves committed errors that stopped the Machine from counting it. However, they didn't present any evidence to support the argument of voter ignorance. And since no where in the law is it written that only machine counted votes count. Ask yourself why they won't even accept a very conserveative standard to ascertain voter intent to count the votes.
By the same I am upset that the Gore lawyers have avoided this crucial Federal Question. Can A State Write Its Laws In A Manner That Could Be Possibly Used To Deny 15th Amendment Rights. The Supreme Answer to that is no and that argument validates the action of The Florida Supremes. And since I understand why they avoided the real Federal Argument. It makes me question the Democrats as the true party of inclusion. But I'll take that up with them directly.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 11, 2000 03:51 PM ]
posted on December 11, 2000 03:45:40 PM
code - Since you have toned down a bit. I'll continue this waste of bandwidth. You are correct that a 70% turnout for one candidate is unrealistic in America 2000 However when all of this was created it was very probable and very doable. So my contention that the college serves to preserve State parity in selecting the president over individual voter parity still holds true.
Code try and remember that we are a nation of 50 States linked by a Constitution. Try and also remember that although the 50 States form one Nation they are still 50 individual entities. Each of these entities are all vying for their peice of the National Pie. Also I direct your attention to the election of 1860. Keep in mind that Lincoln won 59.4% of the elctorate and only 39% of the popular. The only President to become President with less popular than that was John Q. Adams. And further keep in mind that in both the election of 1824 and the election of 1860 there were 4 candidates of varying party affliations and in the case of 1860 one party had two candidates.
Without the electoral college during the election of 1860. You have the Southern States forcing the election. However with the college you get a clear choice from the States that form the Union not the people of a specific geographical region forcing their candidate and their issues due to benefits of population. And if you keep this historically accurate remember that although the North had more people the issue of the right to vote of the new immigrant population of the North hadn't been answered as of yet.
SO the South had more registered voters than the North. Lincoln won they got mad and the rest is history because they decided to test an unasked Constitutional Question can a State Leave. Well we still have no law that addesses that particular issue but I guess that lesson was so bitterly learned that the question hasn't been asked again since.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 11, 2000 03:59 PM ]
posted on December 11, 2000 04:07:15 PM
Networker67,
"Keep in mind that Lincoln won 59.4% of the elctorate and only 39% of the popular."
I think you just proved my point (assuming your figures are correct and which I have no reason to doubt). The Electoral College served to provide Lincoln with a mandate that the popular vote didn't.
Do you see that what I have been saying was embodied in the election of 1860? The 59.4% of the Electoral vote made it appear that Lincoln had won overwhelmingly when in fact over 60% of the voters preferred another candidate.
In addition, when an election is held where there are more than two viable candidates contesting the election it is not unusual for the winner to receive less than 50% of the votes. The Electoral College also serves to "gloss over" this and to make it seem as though the winner received a mandate.
The fact that the 2000 election was so close in terms of popular vote and Electoral vote is an anomaly. And because it is an anomaly, every flaw, large and small, in the process is receiving the harsh glare of public scrutiny. But that doesn't change the historical fact that the Electoral College does indeed confer a sense of mandate to the winner.
Take a look at the popular and Electoral College votes in the 1960 election. That election was also rather close in terms of popular vote but not nearly as close in terms of the Electoral vote.
If I had my druthers, I would like to see elections for national offices based on the principle that if a candidate does not receive at least 50% of all the popular votes cast, then a runoff is held between the two candidates with the highest vote totals.
That would help to confer a mandate on the winner by popular vote instead of by the "winner take all" procedure of the Electoral College. That is the way it is done in Georgia for all elections.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:54:50 PM
I will agree with the mandate statement as it allows the people to accept that although they split among the candidates. The Union as a United entity chose person A over person B. Because we can't have the Union splitting down 25 States in the popular voted for person A and 25 States in the popular voted for person B so we now have two Unions with person A over one and person B over the other.
So the college by our at length discussion serves yet another purpose. It preserves the Union because it gives us one over all with a margin that is large solely because of how it is calculated. As opposed to a small margin of a larger number. Sounds good to me.
Which one thing you said is 100% right this election was and is an anomally. A close popular and a close electoral. Which is why I object to popular votes being cast but not counted. Especially if those same votes end the confusion over who gets the last 25 electorals. If Bush gets them your mandate is lost because he will only have 271 to Gores 267. Which gives us the same problem of a close popular. If Gore gets them your mandate is preserved because he has 292 to 246.
Now back to your runoff. That method would require that we get rid of the convention system of the parties also. Because the conventions were designed to give us candidates from the politcal parties with the mandate as you call it to represent that party. If we don't get rid of the conventions we still are stuck with the same candidates getting the same vote. So the next time you discuss your concept to handle the popular make sure you remember to get rid of those conventions and let all the candidates run openly to see whom the people want.
Which brings up something else interesting along the same lines. With open no party split elections how do the parties maintain their ability to herd us around like sheep? And how do you stop a radical from openly running and having the money to gain enough of the vote to make it too the run off phase? I guess even proposed solutions have their own inherent barriers. I for one will stick with the electoral and pray that the anomaly of this election never happens again.
But I am almost certain it will happen again in about 30 years from now when the first Latino American makes his/her way onto a Presidential ballot as the Vice President choice of one of the Party's. I can see your lil peanut and my lil muffin in a virtual reality debate on that election now. And I get a laugh when I picture that debate.
posted on December 12, 2000 05:10:43 AM
Networker67,
There would be no need to eliminate the nominating conventions of the parties. Nor would that be possible. Folks are free to form organizations to pursue common goals.
There have been any number of viable third party candidates in the past. By viable I mean someone who has received electoral votes or more than 5% of the popular vote cast.
Perot in 1992 received about 19% of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote.
Anderson in 1980 received about 6% of the popular vote (no electoral votes).
George Wallace in 1968 received 13% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes.
Three candidates (Thurmond, Thomas and Henry Wallace) in 1948 garnered about 5% of the popular vote and Thurmond took 39 electoral votes.
In 1924, LaFollette received about 16% of the popular vote and 13 electoral votes.
In 1912, Taft (the incumbent) received about 23% of the popular vote but only 8 electoral votes. Taft's base of support from the 1908 election was split by Roosevelt's entry as a Progressive candidate.
There have also been many presidential elections in which the winner received a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote...
1880 Garfield
1884 Cleveland
1888 Harrison
1892 Cleveland
1912 Wilson
1948 Truman
1968 Nixon
1992 Clinton
There have also been presidential elections in which the winner of the popular vote lost the election...
1876 Tilden
1888 Cleveland
And there have been elections where the winner's popular vote margin was relatively miniscule but the electoral vote wasn't...
1880 Garfield 4,459,083 (214) vs Hancock 4,442,035 (155)
1960 Kennedy 34,226,731 (303) vs Nixon 34,108,157 (219)
1968 Nixon 31,785,480 (301) vs Humphrey 31,275,166 (191)
I think these numbers (taken from the 1995 Information Please Almanac) support the points I have tried to make.
1) The Electoral College confers a mandate on the winner by making the margin of victory appear greater than the actual popular vote would have us believe.
2) The popular vote is a more reliable indication of the will of the people.
3) A runoff between the two highest vote getters in the event no candidate receives a majority of votes is feasible.
Look closely at the most recent elections where a runoff might have changed our country's history.
In 1968 Nixon defeated Humphrey and Wallace but had only about a 500,000 popular vote lead over Humphrey. In a runoff, how might the nearly 10 million voters for Wallace have voted?
In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush rather handily by about 5 million votes. But where would the nearly 20 million voters for Perot have cast their lot in a runoff?
You seem dissatisfied with the current two party system. I've been dissatisfied with it since I was eligible to vote going back to 1972.
A close election in terms of popular vote is generally perceived not to confer a mandate on the winner. No matter how the electoral vote turns out.
Regardless of whether Gore or Bush prevails in this election, neither will have a clear mandate. Not merely because of what has gone on in Florida. Also in large part because of the closeness of the popular vote.
How to effect a change? A runoff would have the attraction of giving the two remaining contenders a chance to clarify their positions relative to each other. To speak to the voters who chose another candidate. Presumably for one to gain a clear cut victory in terms of popular vote and the sense of mandate that can be so important in leading the country.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:22:36 AM
I agree but when the situation where there isn't a viable third party to draw votes from the main 2 is where that system keeps loses the ability to give a mandate. Take 52/56/60/64/84/88 then look at 72/76/80 where you had thrid parties put they didn't draw enough to have their numbers have any effect on a run off.
Which noticing those years where there are no third parties and the years when the third parties have a no effect. One notices something else about the main two parties that is rather shocking. Nothing gets done in America absent a third party. And what's even more shocking when you apply a divisional view to American History
The divisional view is where you break history into 1776 - 1945. And then 1946 - present,
The third parties of 1948 and 1968 ran on agendas that for lack of friendlier words ran on Status Quo Platforms. Which I think helped to cripple the platforms of third parties as far as the general consenus goes. However, when these parties were effectively crippled you have periods of two party nothingness. So given the theory that the main two would have nothing better than have us hered like sheep to them. A system that takes away even a chance of the third party issues making it to the limelight is one I couldn't support.
