The Bush-Kerry ticket for 2004

[crwtom 0]

There's a nice toy on the Gallup web-page. You can make the states on a
US map blue, red or grey with mouse clicks - creating the scenario where
that state goes democratic, republican or leave it unecided. The result in
electoral votes is then displayed in a side bar.

When I put in a scenario that I thought that was plausible given recent
state polls etc - there it was, what I hadn't really thought to be possible:
... a 269:269 stalemate - see attached map.

Recall, that the rule for this would be that the newly elected house appoints
the president and the newly elected senate the vice-president. Not few
people expect the house to stay republican and give the senate reasonable
chances to go democratic.

The bottom line would be a Bush-Kerry presidency.

What a teaser to imagine that. A four year long juxtaposition of personalities
as in the debates - someone will think his second term is not a reward but a
punishment for his first.


Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[narcimund 0]

That would truly be funny enough to make all of this nonsense seem worthwhile.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[quade 4]

Perhaps Bush / Edwards or Kerry / Cheney, but Bush / Kerry couldn't happen.

See http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1308341

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

The bottom line would be a Bush-Kerry presidency.

Not possible.

Forty-two

[AggieDave 6]

It could happen with their clones in 127years, never say never. You've always half to account for their midget clones!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[crwtom 0]

OK - working through the painful language of the 12th it's true that if the
candidacies and options to vote in the electoral college are the same as they
are now the vp has to come from the vp candidates.

From what I saw it seems to me though that the electors are pretty much
free to vote for whatever they want. Even those pledges are of no legal
consequence. I also couldn't discern anything in the constitution where
some defined list of candidates with who runs for what has to be submitted
to the electoral college.

So if after Nov 2nd the congress majorities are clear and the electoral vote
is tied, I cannot find a reason why the presidential candidate with house
minority but senate majority should notr be able to instruct his electors to
vote for him as VP rather than president.

Cheers, T

PS: There's at least one more "plausible" 269:269 scenarion besides the one
that I attached above. This stuff seems to be not anywhere as far
fetched as I initially thought.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true