• 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.

269-269 EV Tie

H. Lee White

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
1,014
Location
The great lakes
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Unlikely but possible.

If so, who wins the election, and why?
Is that result, in your eyes, "fair"? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
Unlikely but possible.

If so, who wins the election, and why?
Is that resuly, in your eyes, "fair"? Why or why not?


If it's a tie, Romney wins.

Is it fair? Well I don't think the electoral system is fair so no. I think we should have run-offs in all states instead of one state takes all like most of the other states have right now.
 
Unlikely but possible.

If so, who wins the election, and why?
Is that resuly, in your eyes, "fair"? Why or why not?
I'm less interested with "fair" and more interested with removing Obama because he shouldn't have been elected in the first place. So, as long as Obama loses, then yes it's fair, if that's the lip-service many need to hear. Whatever it takes. Whatever rule needs to be broken, whatever lie needs to be told, as long as Obama is removed from office it's all justified.
 
Unlikely but possible.

If so, who wins the election, and why?
Is that resuly, in your eyes, "fair"? Why or why not?

Well Romney wins, and Biden stays VP because the makeup of the Senate is probably not going to switch, and the Republicans will almost definitely have more state House delegations.

I think its fair, in that any given election either party has a roughly equal chance of holding on to more state delegations than the other one.
 
Unlikely but possible.

If so, who wins the election, and why?

The incoming House of Representatives will pick the president, with each state delegation casting one vote. This probably means Mitt Romney will win, since it's very likely that Republicans will still control a majority of the state delegations in the House of Representatives in the next Congress.

Is that result, in your eyes, "fair"? Why or why not?

No, it's not fair. The president should be elected by a popular vote, period.
 
I'm less interested with "fair" and more interested with removing Obama because he shouldn't have been elected in the first place. So, as long as Obama loses, then yes it's fair, if that's the lip-service many need to hear. Whatever it takes. Whatever rule needs to be broken, whatever lie needs to be told, as long as Obama is removed from office it's all justified.

A typical conservative. Thanks for showing us your colors.
 
Correct me if I am wrong... the house votes on both.

You are wrong. The Senate picks the VP. ;)

In that unlikely event, I'm really not sure what the Senate would do, since it has no (recent) historical precedent. Even though the Democrats control the Senate, my guess is that they'd vote to give Romney the VP he wanted.
 
No, it's not fair. The president should be elected by a popular vote, period.
With that definition of fairness in mind.... if Romney wins the popular vote and Obama wins the EC, you'll argue that Romney should be President?
 
With that definition of fairness in mind.... if Romney wins the popular vote and Obama wins the EC, you'll argue that Romney should be President?

I'll argue that Romney should HAVE been elected president, if he wins the popular vote. But I won't argue that the election is illegitimate under the system we currently have in place.
 
You are wrong. The Senate picks the VP. ;)
Roger that.

In that unlikely event, I'm really not sure what the Senate would do, since it has no (recent) historical precedent. Even though the Democrats control the Senate, my guess is that they'd vote to give Romney the VP he wanted.
Good point there.
 
I'll argue that Romney should HAVE been elected president, if he wins the popular vote. But I won't argue that the election is illegitimate under the system we currently have in place.
Just curious...
92/96 election: No one carried a majority of the popular vote. When the majority of the people vote for someone else, who wins - and why?
 
I voted for Bush in 2000, but I think the will of the people should have prevailed. I don't like the EC at all. I live in a state with 4 EC votes, and I don't think my state is any less important than NY or California, just because they have a bigger population.

If Romney wins the popular vote, I won't like it any better than I did in 2000, even though I was glad Bush prevailed. It was wrong then, it would be wrong next week.

We shall see.
 
Just curious...
92/96 election: No one carried a majority of the popular vote. When the majority of the people vote for someone else, who wins - and why?

Theoretically, I'd argue it should go to whoever got a plurality then. The only time that happened though was 1824, and the man chosen by the House was in second as far as popular and electoral vote (John Quincy Adams). The losers, Andrew Jackson's supporters cried foul because he had a plurality in both.
 
Each state only gets one vote so it would go to Romney. Since the vote occurs after the new Congress is sworn in, the VP slot would still likely go to Ryan IMO. The dems losing the Presidency are going to want someone to run against and that would be hard with Biden as VP. I am sure Biden would do it a a puffy way "I refuse to serve as his Vice-President" to give him time to set up his own final run in 2016 against Hillary.
 
I doubt a tie will happen nor do i think the popular vote winner will lose the electoral vote.
 
I doubt a tie will happen nor do i think the popular vote winner will lose the electoral vote.

You are correct. Mitt is going to win both.
 
Yikes. President Romney with VP Biden.


Hope the Secret Service spends less time looking up love-me-long-time girls and more time on the President in such an instance. Democrats will be pissed, and some will see a Biden Presidency as their Way Out.
 
Just curious...
92/96 election: No one carried a majority of the popular vote. When the majority of the people vote for someone else, who wins - and why?

Ideally I think there should be a runoff election between the top two vote-getters, if no one has a majority. But in the absence of that, I'd be OK with a mere plurality popular vote. It'd still be better than the electoral college IMO.
 
Ideally I think there should be a runoff election between the top two vote-getters, if no one has a majority. But in the absence of that, I'd be OK with a mere plurality popular vote. It'd still be better than the electoral college IMO.
Even though the majority voted for someone else?
 
Even though the majority voted for someone else?

Yeah, most elections are already plurality popular vote...I think every state does it that way except for Louisiana. It wouldn't be ideal, but IMO it would still be an improvement over the current system where not only can a candidate win without a majority, they can win without even a plurality.
 
Ideally I think there should be a runoff election between the top two vote-getters, if no one has a majority. But in the absence of that, I'd be OK with a mere plurality popular vote. It'd still be better than the electoral college IMO.

So they could spend another billion dollars because someone got 3% of the vote. No thanks.
 
I'm less interested with "fair" and more interested with removing Obama because he shouldn't have been elected in the first place. So, as long as Obama loses, then yes it's fair, if that's the lip-service many need to hear. Whatever it takes. Whatever rule needs to be broken, whatever lie needs to be told, as long as Obama is removed from office it's all justified.

Why not? He won didn't he? Are you saying we shouldn't adhere to the will of the people?
 
Back
Top Bottom