• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Split vote? (popular vs electoral)

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Some political pundits believe it is possible... possible, not a given... that Romney might win the popular vote and Obama win the electoral vote. Personally, being the observationist curmudgeon that I am, I would find this scenario absolutely delightful. I would find it immensely entertaining to see my extreme partisan liberal friends spend the next four years trying to spin and justify the legitimacy of the Obama Presidency considering how most of them are still whining about the 2000 election.

I already can predict what I think some of the spin will be, but I'm not telling. :mrgreen:
 
It's not like this has never happened before. And considering our giant douche and turd sandwich choices we keep getting, it may even start to become more frequent.
 
It can happen, but I doubt it will happen this election.
 
We have precedent. Whoever wins the electoral college wins the presidency, regardless of what their party affiliation is when it happens. It is weighted for a reason. The vast majority of states should not be dictated to by a few with high population centers. Part of the problem, and one of the things that would make this all less relevant, is that the federal government has become so overly involved in providing social services. If the social services were left to the states and the federal tax burden reduced accordingly, individual states could better provide services to their own citizens.
 
I am really in left field because I think if it splits it will split the other way with Romney winning the electoral vote and Obama winning the popular vote.
 
Ikari said:
It's not like this has never happened before. And considering our giant douche and turd sandwich choices we keep getting, it may even start to become more frequent.
Click to expand...
There was a scenario painted earlier this week whereby there could be a tie in the electoral college and the house would select the president and the senate would select the VP. That could leave us with 4 years of Romney/Biden or less likely, Obama/Ryan. How fun would that be?
 
Fisher said:
I am really in left field because I think if it splits it will split the other way with Romney winning the electoral vote and Obama winning the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Obama is far more likely to carry the larger states. Gore only won 19 states to Bush's 31 and it was still very close.
 
VanceMack said:
There was a scenario painted earlier this week whereby there could be a tie in the electoral college and the house would select the president and the senate would select the VP. That could leave us with 4 years of Romney/Biden or less likely, Obama/Ryan. How fun would that be?
Click to expand...

I liked the old rules where the winner was President and the runner up was Vice-President.
 
radcen said:
Some political pundits believe it is possible... possible, not a given... that Romney might win the popular vote and Obama win the electoral vote. Personally, being the observationist curmudgeon that I am, I would find this scenario absolutely delightful. I would find it immensely entertaining to see my extreme partisan liberal friends spend the next four years trying to spin and justify the legitimacy of the Obama Presidency considering how most of them are still whining about the 2000 election.

I already can predict what I think some of the spin will be, but I'm not telling. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It's happened before.

In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.

Electoral College: How to Lose, But Win an Election
 
VanceMack said:
There was a scenario painted earlier this week whereby there could be a tie in the electoral college and the house would select the president and the senate would select the VP. That could leave us with 4 years of Romney/Biden or less likely, Obama/Ryan. How fun would that be?
Click to expand...

The House is going to tighten up after the election and it isn't as if every member of the GOP loves their tea party hostage-takers. Illinois has some craziness going on in its House races. Get some of those moderates who survived being hung out to dry during the campaign by the GOP into a backroom, you never know what might transpire.
 
It would be poetic justice if Romney won the popular vote and lost the electoral. Gore's revenge. Of course Gore also really won the electoral vote, but that's blood under the fraud bridge.
 
Ikari said:
I liked the old rules where the winner was President and the runner up was Vice-President.
Click to expand...
Obama would SO make Romney his bitch...."hey...Mitt...why dont you fly to Somalia on a diplomatic mission...but first, go make me a sammich"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom