What if there's a tie?

You know...when the Framers wrote the Constitution, they devised the electoral college expressly so the popular vote would not necessarily determine the outcome. If it did, the fear was that the few most populous states would effectively elect the President.

If you don't like the electoral system, please submit a Constitutional amendment for consideration.

 

refman. exactly.. I'm tired of hearing about bush didn't have the popular vote blah blah blah. it doesn't matter. The electoral college didn't invent itself.. that is how elections work, and it has nothing to do with Bush.. both sides know the rules of the election coming in. You do not have to win the popular vote to win the election. that is how it works.

 

I'd have to look back at the history.. I forget the reason they made the H of R decide the tie..

 

they devised the electoral college expressly so the popular vote would not necessarily determine the outcome. If it did, the fear was that the few most populous states would effectively elect the President.


Oddly enough, it's kind of worked the opposite. As it is, neither candidate has any reason to focus on the two most populous states in the nation, California or Texas.

If we were doing a direct election, it would matter if Bush won Texas 60-40 or 70-30. That means my vote would matter as much as someone in Florida, and candidates would be well advised to try to win votes everywhere. That means Kerry would have to work to appeal to Texans and Bush would have to do so with Californias. Whoever wins would "owe" the entire country rather than a handful of states.

In this election, both candidates are likely to simply focus on a half-dozen states and the issues that are most important to them, at the expense of the rest of us.

 

What's the point of using representative legislature if they aren't suppose to represent the views of their constituents? Since the House members are suppose to represent their districts, why can't they make such a decision? Who better to do it?

But should we change to a direct election, the small states would suffer greatly. After all, why would any candidate care about the midwest states and their puny populations when you have a direct election? The result would be a national policy much more biased towards the populous states.

I'm not saying that what we have now is perfect, but the alternative might not be great either.

 

I am sooo sick of this argument ... It is completely r****ded. If we want to make the person with the most votes president, then fine. Say it before hand. I know so many people that did not vote for Bush(and a few for Gore) because they knew their state was already decided. Campaigning would be completely different and the election would be completely different.

A little example: In the 2002 World Series the Angels won 4 games and the Giants won 3 BUT the Giants outscored the Angels in the series 44-41. Now saying that the Giants are the "real champions" because they scored more runs in the series is like saying Gore really deserved the presidency.

When you change the rules, the game(campaigning) is played differently and the results would be completely changed.

Think what you want of W ... I could care less whether you like him or not, but quit using this BS argument that he didnt really win the election because he did not get the popular vote.

 

I agree with the idea that a direct election with the Popular vote makes sense for the most part, but as someone stated before the small states get ignored ... BUT

more importantly than that imagine if we ever had an election where the popular vote was separated by 1000-2000 votes like FL was last year. I don't even want to think about the chaos with the lawyers and the recounts throughout the whole country. I just don't think it would work.

 

i doubt it will be a tie because bush will make sure he wins florida, "fair and square" ala chen shuibian in Taiwan.

if it does come down to a tie, i dont like the H&R having the ultimatum vote. we should do it the american way, and have the population think of the best competition to determine the president, like an American President Idol, American President Gladiators (droool to see that), or a spelling bee (ok, too democrat leaning).

maybe something along the lines of billy madison, send them both k-12 and then have a big contest at the end. or a good old, skull and bones society duel. or a "who can name the fifty states?" but again, democrat leaning.

 

haha ... I agree ... How about Presidential Most Extreme Elimination though

 

If there is a tie, I want to see a pistol duel between the two of them at 20 paces. That would be a hell of alot more entertaining than their stump speeches.

 

But should we change to a direct election, the small states would suffer greatly. After all, why would any candidate care about the midwest states and their puny populations when you have a direct election?

Because if there are two candidates, and say Kerry ignores Nebraska and Bush doesn't, Bush will win Nebraska *big*, and that is better than winning small. That means both candidates will pay attention to ALL the voters, rather than cherry-picking states. Winning over a voter in Delaware becomes as important as winning over a voter in Florida. Granted, candidates will spend *more* of their time in the big states because there are more voters to woo, but doesn't that sound like how it should be?

As it is, Bush is going to win Nebraska no matter what, so why should either candidate bother? I don't think the electoral college system helps get those small states involved - just the really divided ones, big or small. Or at least, the winner-takes-all system does that. If you divided up the electoral college voters based on the winning %, then you could maybe solve both problems at once.

 

I've got no problem with our system. I would advocate that the decision, should it be sent to the House, be decided by the incoming House. As I recall, there was some discussion about his (or did it have to do with that impeachment thing a while back?).

The House was picked because are the ones most directly connected to the people, having to run every 2 years.

I don't think there will be a tie.

 

God forbid that the person with the most votes gets elected...That would be a travesty...

I say that the presidential election go to a BCS type system like college football and let a computer decide...

 

In the unlikely event that there's a "tie," I have no problem with the incoming House being the tiebreakers.

 

Good analogy on the popular vote issue but you must also take into account that the Nader swing helped Gore lose Florida costing him the election. Notice that I didn't say that it helped Bush win Florida. Make no mistake that GORE LOST THE ELECTION. His lackluster performance in the campaign made it a close race and it really should not have been that close.
(I might lose my "liberal membership card" for that comment.)

 

Just because a girl wears a short skirt doesn't mean she deserves to be raped.

 

No, you are still a member in good standing. I agree with the above. 2000 was Gore's to lose, and he lost it. 2004 is Dubya's to lose, and he is in danger of doing the very same thing.