Posted on 10/11/2012 9:41:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If the presidential election were to play out according to RealClearPolitics' latest polling averages, Mitt Romney would surpass President Obama by 1.0 percent in the nationwide vote.
Cue the balloon drop and pop the champagne corks in Boston, right? Not exactly.
Under the same current polling scenario, Obama’s relative strength in the battleground states could propel him to victory over Romney in the Electoral College.
A candidate has been elected president while losing the popular vote four times in American history (including John Quincy Adams, who in 1824 finished second in the popular vote to Andrew Jackson but was elected by the House of Representatives when none of the four candidates won a majority in the Electoral College).
The scenario is always an unlikely one, but given the tightness of the 2012 contest, an electoral victory on the heels of a popular vote defeat isn’t out of the question for Obama or Romney.
In the days before the 2000 election, George W. Bush’s campaign reportedly prepared talking points to dispute the democratic fairness of what was then seen as a more likely outcome -- that Al Gore would win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
And I'm gonn'a say about 40% of what I read here in FR is IF ... THEN ... and it is all boojit !!
Romney has destroyed any credibility zero may have had and Ryan will not back down from plugs.
The zero administration is over and the only thing left to IF THEN is ... do we enter a new administration with blood and burned buildings, or like mature adults ?
The Left has already said they will riot if Zero loses under ANY scenario..................
If Romney were to win the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote, we would have to demand that Congress certify Romney as the winner.
Look here:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map#map
Ignore the current numbers. Scroll down and look how states voted before they had the chance to “make history” by electing the first black president. They will all go back to their roots (and some will join them). Romney will do a Reagan v Carter.
If the election were to be held in congressional districts with only two votes determined by the state-wide total, then maybe the situation would be more manageable. And instead of recounts, a second election to be held within a month. Face it, though, there is no best way.
If the election were to be held in congressional districts with only two votes determined by the state-wide total, then maybe the situation would be more manageable. And instead of recounts, a second election to be held within a month. Face it, though, there is no best way.
... do we enter a new administration with blood and burned buildings, or like mature adults ?
I believe it will be the former. If you don’t have food and bullets, GET THEM.
Pennsylvania's Quisling GOP chairman p*ssed away that opportunity last year because "we can win all 20." Instead, they gave us a voter ID law as a booby prize which some fudgepacking judge found a feeble excuse to avoid implementing for this election.
The electoral college serves a very important purpose of making sure the president is elected with a wide test (geography) as well as a deep test (actual votes).
The wide test is perverted when a large state like Pennsylvania is dominated by a single corruption endemic city like Philadelphia.
Gleason, our Quisling GOP chairman, also claimed that adopting the district plan would reduce national campaign spending in Pennsylvania. Hello, assh*le, refusing to adopt that plan has had that effect instead. Imagine how much campaign activity we'd have going on now with 12 to 16 of our 20 available electoral votes actually being competitive and contested.
It would be a whole new ball game nationwide and we would be getting as much attention as Virginia or Ohio.
Let'em. Conservatives believe in gun ownership. Liberals believe in gun banning. Who do you suspect is better armed?
CORRECTION: Liberals believe in banning YOUR GUN. Not theirs................
Not gonna happen. It isn’t even gonna be close. Obama will lose in a LANDSLIDE.
I do not like the allocation system of Maine and Nebraska.
Its appealing at first...until one realizes the congressional districts are gerrymandered beyond repair.
In 2004, only 42 districts (out of 435) were won by less than 4%...or ‘competitive’. This means only 10% of the voters would be voting in a ‘meaningful’ contest.
I haven’t done the math; but, I assume the population of the ‘swing states’ is more than 10% of the nation...making the current system superior, as far as representation goes.
A landslide of EPIC proportions...
Astonishingly slanted story on RCP. I have never heard anything about the Bush campaign in 2000 being ready to dispute the Electoral College, but in the closing weeks, the dems talked at great length and volume about how the EC was the only thing that counted. They were as surprised as anyone that Gore won a popular vote majority. RCP manages to leave that out.
Gore only won the popular vote because of the DUI October surprise, which dominated the news over the last four days, plus the early election night call in Florida, which depressed the Republican vote in the Mountain and western time zones. That, plus vote fraud, which could easily have been greater than the nominal margin.
I wonder if our intrepid reporters are going to press AlGore on the proper response should 2012 reverse the situation.
Romney is going to get at least 325 EVs.
I advocate for the district voting system.
Each congressional district gets one electoral vote. The candidate that receives 50+% of the vote within the district get the electoral vote. If no candidate receives 50+%, then the top two candidates by vote count have a run off election in 30 days with the candidate who receives the most votes in the run off, receiving the electoral vote. If the run off results in a tie, the current sitting Governor appoints the electoral vote.
Each state has two additional electoral votes. One vote goes to the candidate that received the most votes in the state (popular vote), the other vote goes to the candidate that received the most district votes. If there is a tie in either condition, the current sitting Governor then appoints the electoral vote.
As long it is done by the law (and, as long as fraud was kept to a minimum...), using the Electoral College, who cares?
The Electoral College was set up, in part, as a check on the “tyranny of the majority.” Let it do its job.
I was playing around a little bit with the HuffPo mapping tool. If you use their poll numbers and give Romney every state where Obama hasn't broken 50% (by HuffPo's numbers), that gives Romney 324.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.