MINORITY PRESIDENTS
Read the article this discussion is about
- Tina_Coruth
- Mugwump53
- jerrib
- Mugwump53
- BuckyRea
- Mugwump53
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» Tina_Coruth - Hi John,
Hi John,Wow, this is an eye-opener! I didn't realise so many presidents had been elected with less than 50% of the vote. I'm not sure how I feel about that. But I am sure that I enjoyed this article very much, and learned something in the process. Thank you.
Tina
-- posted by Tina_Coruth
» Mugwump53 - Thanks, Tina
Thanks, Tina. Glad you liked it. I have heard an unusual number of repsponses to this article. I just wish people would respond in this discussion area so others can join in. But I do enjoy hearing from readers by e-mail.I thought a numberof people might be surprised by this one. It is one of the few positive features of the Electoral College, and one main reason why everyone is hesitant to change it.
Thanks for reading and letting me know what you thought.
-- posted by Mugwump53
» Mugwump53 - Change
Hi, Jerri.I used to be very opposed to the Electoral College. But as I learn more, while not necessarily in favor of it, I am at least appreciative of its good points and more leary of the possible side effects which might result from changing or abolishing it.
It is an interesting question. Maybe one to ask over in Alternative History.
-- posted by Mugwump53
» BuckyRea - Re: Change
I'd welcome the commentary, but since the chat's started here I'll gladly continue it here. I'm a little bit concerned about the Electoral College this year. This is the first really close election we've had in over 20 years and the possibility is quite real that we'll have a "split" decision in the election.Split, that is, between one candidate winning the popular vote and the other winning the Electoral College. Not too likely, but still easily in the realm of possibility.
If you look at the poll numbers nationally, Gore tends to be 1-3 percentage points ahead of Bush. BUT, opinion polls generally tend to favor Democrats by about the same margins (Democratic-leaning citizens tend to be less likely to actually go out and vote--one reason why analysts tend to say fair weather and heavy turn-outs work against Republicans). Furthermore, Republican Bush continues to edge northward in those polls.
Given current trends, it's very possible Bush will pass Gore up in the popular vote in the next three weeks. But the Electoral College may not honor that outcome. If you look at a map of likely outcomes on a state by state basis, you'll see that Gore still enjoys a substantial advantage.
The election basically comes down to three states: Florida, Ohio, and Michigan. All the other big states are in the comfort zone for one candidate or another. These three are all about dead even in the polls.
Here's the kicker: If Gore wins any one of those three states, he wins the Electoral College--given all his "very likely" states (and even allowing for very unlikely Gore losses in toss-up states New Hampshire and Oregon), the addition of any one of those three large states will put Gore over the 50% Electoral mark, regardless of whether he wins a popular plurality or not.
For Bush to win the College, he'll have to win all three of those states.
So what do yall think of this analysis? If a candidate wins the Electoral College but finishes 2nd in the popular vote, should he accept the built in distortion of the popular will as the wisdom of the Framers?
Should he (or even would he) decline the EC verdict, possibly by directing a few of "his" electors to switch their votes?
Would this provoke a constitutional crisis? A movement for amending the Electoral system? An opposition party that flatout refuses to accept a sitting president's legitimacy?
What would or could the losing candidate do? How bad would it get? Would any solution be possible to create a national consensus in the four years following such a debacle?
-- posted by BuckyRea
» Mugwump53 - You have raised a good point, Bucky, and provided a good analysi
You have raised a good point, Bucky, and provided a good analysis of the situation. There wasa considerable worry in 1968 that George Wallace's third party bid might throw the election into the U.S. House of Representatives.A few weeks ago, I looked at a projection of a recent poll in mnap form. (The Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the first link on my welcome page.) It showed, at that time, that while Bush was slightly ahead in popular votes, Gore already had 270 electoral votes.
Checking this same poll last week, some of the "Gore" states had been switched to "toss up" states. Bush now leadas (according to this one poll) in both electoral and popular votes. But you are correct about a few states deciding the election.
Glorida, of course, is still the big one. Most polls still list PA and Ohio as close, but in one or the other candiate's column. Other close states right now appear to be Missouri, Michigan, and Tennessee (of all places). There are several more, depending on which poll you are reading.
It will be a very interessting election, but any sudden passion to change the Electoral College will quickly evaporate, as it always does after a "crisis," real or feared.
This is a most interesting thread. Please feel free to continue it up through and after election day.
Don't forget to join the hisotyr room chat during the debate tonight.
-- posted by Mugwump53
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.