269 and 269

[IglooDame]

As far as Edwards getting the VP while Bush gets selected by the HoR to be the president, I don't think it would happen. Knowing the potential chaos in a split White House, either a Democratic senator would flip, or I suspect Edwards himself would bow out and defer to Cheney. It would be the classy thing to do, IMHO.

 

[Serutan]

I still haven't figured out why farmers in the middle of nowhere get a stronger voice than anyone else...just seems...well, wierd.

Maybe, but I can tell you why. It was so that the
Constitution would be accepted when it was sumbmitted
for ratification in late 1787. The small states would
not accept a constitution that gave them little say (i.e.
protection) in the government. So Congress was split
between proprotional representation (the House), and
one state one vote representation (Senate). The
Electoral College was a similar compromise; one elector
for each senator and congressman. There's an article
over in the History forum on this...

IMO I don't think we should get rid of the Electoral
College; I think, however, that the Nebraska formula
should be used : Electors elected by congressional
district, and the two elector representing the Senators
go to whoever wins the overall vote.

The reason for this is I don't want us to become like Canada, where a single province (Ontario) seems able
to determine who the Government is going to be.

@Perfection : The 12th Amendment came about to make
the Electors specify who their Presidential and Vice Presidential votes were for; in 1800 Jefferson and Burr
were tied for President, even though they were a ticket.

 

[Chairman Meow]

It's happened before. The 19th century was full of interesting electorial college numbers. There were ties, and even one race where no canidate had the number of electorial votes required (4 canidates running for that election).

Ah, yes... in 1824 the election was decided by the House of Representatives, because there was no majority as a result of 4 candidates running, and the candidate that had the most electoral and popular votes (Andrew Jackson) lost the election, because the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams.

 

[emzie]

Ah, yes... in 1824 the election was decided by the House of Representatives, because there was no majority as a result of 4 candidates running, and the candidate that had the most electoral and popular votes (Andrew Jackson) lost the election, because the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams.

Well, John Quincy Adams made a deal with another party who was running (can't remember the guys name, but he was made Sec. of State) Every Sec. of State before him became the next President. Jackson flipped out and campaigned for four years.

Nebraska and Maine have the same setup. Winner of the popular takes the two senators. The districts can split. It's still rather flawed though. In Maine, if Bush won by .1% He would get 3 votes to 1. The Electoral College is a worthy concept, but the vote should split based on the percentage of voters within the state. The winner-takes-all concept does disenfranchise millions. It wouldn't make California such huge bloc for Democrats or Texas such a strong bloc for Republicans.

I imagine eventually, through the courts, this will happen.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

I imagine eventually, through the courts, this will happen.

Actually, it is one of the few things the courts can't change, since it written into the constitution. The power to decide how the electors are proportioned is left up to the state legislators. We would need a constitutional amendment to change it.

The Supreme court can just by-pass the whole system and cast their vote like last time.

 

[emzie]

Actually, it is one of the few things the courts can't change, since it written into the constitution. The power to decide how the electors are proportioned is left up to the state legislators. We would need a constitutional amendment to change it.

The Supreme court can just by-pass the whole system and cast their vote like last time.

I was aware. The Federal courts cannot change it, but state courts can. Though, thinking about it, there's no reason for 9 Conservative judges in Alabama to even wish to.

Unless... I think the argument could be made that a state's decision is unconstitutional... if you could prove an infringement on civil liberties.

I'm no law scholar though.

 

[Renata]

I almost hope we'll get a situation sometime soon where a bunch of states are splitting their electoral vote, a bunch others aren't, and faithless electors are cropping up left and right -- especially if a few of them are later convicted of accepting bribes to do so. It'd take a chaos like that to get the system ever changed.

Renata

 

[Sir Bugsy]

I was aware. The Federal courts cannot change it, but state courts can. Though, thinking about it, there's no reason for 9 Conservative judges in Alabama to even wish to.

There is the other side of it. So many people see the system benefiting themselves that they won't change it. I don't think a constitutional amendment would ever pass.

 

[IglooDame]

There is the other side of it. So many people see the system benefiting themselves that they won't change it. I don't think a constitutional amendment would ever pass.

Indeed. On an individual basis heavy-leaning states would simply be giving electoral votes to the opposition candidate, and collectively/federally the Reps and Dems would be opening the door to third-party candidates. There's a reason the FEC consists entirely of Rep and Dem appointees.