Distill it down; who will win?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

No, the electoral college reps were elected. They had not yet cast their vote.

I wonder what kind of screaming we'd be hearing about Gore stealing the eliction and manipulating the system if a couple of those guys changed their vote.

And that's why I don't understand how anyone can stomach the system as it is right now. The people who actually elect the president, the electoral college, have no requirement whatsoever to vote the way the people in their state did.

Hell, they could elect me president in Novemember, and I'm not on anyone's ballot.


ps - if that actually had happened, I wonder how long it would've taken for Sore and Loserman to be knocked off so the republican next in line could take office...

(that would've been Lott, right?)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The people who actually elect the president, the electoral college, have no requirement whatsoever to vote the way the people in their state did.

That's by design. What happens if the candidate dies between the general election and meeting of the electoral college (Horace Greeley 1872)? If the electoral college couldn't change who they vote for, the other person wins be default or a dead man takes office.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And that's why I don't understand how anyone can stomach the system as it is right now. The people who actually elect the president, the electoral college, have no requirement whatsoever to vote the way the people in their state did.

Hell, they could elect me president in Novemember, and I'm not on anyone's ballot.

But given the manner in which the Electors are selected by each party, the odds of this happening are exactly the same as a massive ice age appearing overnight in NYC. They don't pick ambilivent characters. The person who ditch Gore in the last one did so because it meant nothing besides publicity.

The only time they might deviate is if the person died, or was caught screwing his daughter or a pig.

[billvon 3,120]

>That is an inaccurate statement bill. More Voting americans wanted
>Gore to be president than Bush.

That's right, and we consider the voting population's wishes to represent the wishes of the population, since everyone can vote. And yes, I'm going to ignore six month old babies, criminals on death row and the insane. But who knows? Maybe they all would have voted for Bush.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"More Americans who cared enough about the election results to get their asses to the voting booth wanted Gore as president."

I think that anyone who doesn't care enough to go vote has no basis for complaint about the results of the election.

I generally agree with this, but I'm going to say it's a 85% truth.

Republicans in CA, IL, NY, MA had really no incentive to vote with regards to the presidency. Democrats in TX and many smaller states are in a similar situation, but I think this factor biases the popular vote towards the Democratic side.

On the other side, Republicans are more likely to vote, which biases the actual vote count to the GOP side.

So does the popular vote count reflect America's wish? Probably, but not to that level of accuracy. 1% is well within the error rate for ballot counting, even outside of Florida or San Francisco or Chicago. I remember thinking that week that the opposite result was a possibility - Bush had a 1-2% lead but losing Florida would have shifted the election the other way.