PDA

View Full Version : House of Representatives


Calcountry
10-16-2004, 05:50 PM
If Kerry wins the NE, Ohio, Iowa, and NM, but doesn't win NH, he would have 269 to Bush 268, Or

If Bush wins NM and loses NH and the others mentioned above, it would be Bush 269 to Kerry 268.

Neither candidate gaining the necessary 270 under the Constitution to become president.

The way the polls are currently, this is a very REAL possibilty. 2 different scenarios that have the NEXT congress voting for the President.

Amazing.

I hope for the good of the country that this thing breaks one way or the other.

Bearcat2005
10-16-2004, 06:11 PM
So we need to re-elect every republican congressman/woman! If this happened in Bush's favor I would never stop laughing!

unlurking
10-16-2004, 06:19 PM
Hey, can you point me to a more detailed EC web site?

Using this link:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

I am only seeing that a candidate needs to win by one point, not a 270 requirement. Has a reform taken place or something?

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority [b](one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

TIA

unlurking
10-16-2004, 06:24 PM
Ahh I see.

From this page:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

I see that the reason you need 270 is because we have an even number of total EC votes (538).

You are basing your numbers off 537, so you can't have a 269 and 268 if there are a total of 538 EC votes.

Michael Michigan
10-16-2004, 06:36 PM
FWIW:

Maine grants its Electoral College votes per Congressional district.

Bush leads in one of them (the 2nd I think) so if it does come down to a tie at 269-269, it would push it to 270-268 Bush.

It might get intersting.

unlurking
10-16-2004, 06:43 PM
FWIW:

Maine grants its Electoral College votes per Congressional district.

Bush leads in one of them (the 2nd I think) so if it does come down to a tie at 269-269, it would push it to 270-268 Bush.

It might get intersting.
Add in the concern of the Colorado bill to "split" EC votes and it gets more interesting. With a Republican congress, I would think this benefits the incumbent, although I don't know the split in the House.

whoman69
10-16-2004, 07:04 PM
I think its no secret that if this were to the House then Bush would win by a vote that much like the Supreme Court decision of 2000 would be exactly on party lines.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 07:14 PM
Ahh I see.

From this page:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

I see that the reason you need 270 is because we have an even number of total EC votes (538).

You are basing your numbers off 537, so you can't have a 269 and 268 if there are a total of 538 EC votes.
MM nailed it. The EC projection I was using did not include Maine.

alnorth
10-17-2004, 03:16 PM
Add in the concern of the Colorado bill to "split" EC votes and it gets more interesting.

Add in the fact that this effort is unconstitutional though, and it becomes less interesting. Even the initiative's backers concede that it has serious legal hurdles to clear if it passed. They were just looking for national publicity to spark the nation into EC reform.

Aside from that, the latest polls show this initiative going down in flames anyway, even many Democrats have begun to oppose it, knowing that it would be bad for their state.

Boozer
10-17-2004, 03:20 PM
Bush would certainly win if the election went to the House, as at that stage, each state gets one vote (with the Representatives from that state voting to determine how that vote will be cast). At that point, the six people who live in Wyoming have as much power as the millions of people in New York.

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 03:23 PM
Add in the fact that this effort is unconstitutional though

I don't know that I would go that far...I have yet to read anything that suggests it is unconstitutional...each state may choose how it allocates the the EC votes and it has a certain time period to report those votes....if this were retroactive it would certainly have to be counted within the after election time frame

RINGLEADER
10-17-2004, 03:23 PM
I think its no secret that if this were to the House then Bush would win by a vote that much like the Supreme Court decision of 2000 would be exactly on party lines.


Well duh!

But it wouldn't be close...GOP will hold around 30 states after the election, and the Dems will hold about half that (the rest of the states are tied).

RINGLEADER
10-17-2004, 03:25 PM
I don't know that I would go that ar...I have yet to read anything that suggests it is unconstitutional...each state may choose how it allocates the the EC votes and it has a certain time period to report those votes....if this were retroactive it would certainly have to be counted within the after election time frame


I don't know that it would be unconstitutional either, but you can bet if the election hinges on which way that vote goes you'll see the Mother of All Hypocritical legal battles develop (with whoever doesn't benefit from however the results turn out - if it passes - suing to get the results enforced/overturn).

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 03:25 PM
Well duh!

But it wouldn't be close...GOP will hold around 30 states after the election, and the Dems will hold about half that (the rest of the states are tied).

I think Musgrave might lose her support to Matsunaka...but I'm more confident that Beaupret will lose to Thomas and Salazar will win the open senate seat in Colorado

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 03:27 PM
I don't know that it would be unconstitutional either, but you can bet if the election hinges on which way that vote goes you'll see the Mother of All Hypocritical legal battles develop (with whoever doesn't benefit from however the results turn out - if it passes - suing to get the results enforced/overturn).

Absolutly agreed...did hell freeze over?....but I think that it will fail anyway there seems to be a feeling Kerry could win the state

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2004, 03:34 PM
I don't know that I would go that far...I have yet to read anything that suggests it is unconstitutional...each state may choose how it allocates the the EC votes and it has a certain time period to report those votes....if this were retroactive it would certainly have to be counted within the after election time frame

The Constitution says electors will be chosen by a process to be determined by the state's LEGISLATURES---not citizens.

It is unconstitutional. Had the legislature REFERRED this to the people, you might have an argument that it could pass Constitutional scrutiny. As is, it will not.

unlurking
10-17-2004, 05:40 PM
The Constitution says electors will be chosen by a process to be determined by the state's LEGISLATURES---not citizens.

It is unconstitutional. Had the legislature REFERRED this to the people, you might have an argument that it could pass Constitutional scrutiny. As is, it will not.
From:

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/TeachingwithCurrentEvents/ConstitutionNewswire/12547.shtml

But Amendment 36 supporters say state case law supports the idea that a citizen initiative process is equivalent to the legislature in the eyes of the Constitution.

I agree with you, and don't think it would stand if voted in. The problem is what do you do if it gets approved, changes the outcome of the election, and then gets shot down as unconstitutional. This is going to get rough.

RINGLEADER
10-17-2004, 05:53 PM
The Constitution says electors will be chosen by a process to be determined by the state's LEGISLATURES---not citizens.

It is unconstitutional. Had the legislature REFERRED this to the people, you might have an argument that it could pass Constitutional scrutiny. As is, it will not.


I don't much care if things have to be examined by the courts for legitimacy, but if either side starts feigning fraud where none exists I'm going to get really PO'd. I'm not talking about the bi-annual call for some partisan judge to hold the polling places open in St. Louis (or the eventual overturning a half hour later), I'm talking about a systematic attempt to call the results into question just because one side doesn't like the results. As much as I'd like to hang out with you guys for another month I'd have to say that would be just about the worst thing that could happen.

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 09:24 PM
The Constitution says electors will be chosen by a process to be determined by the state's LEGISLATURES---not citizens.

It is unconstitutional. Had the legislature REFERRED this to the people, you might have an argument that it could pass Constitutional scrutiny. As is, it will not.

Colorado Constitution

Section 1. General assembly (. x. ) initiative and referendum. (1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2004, 09:32 PM
Colorado Constitution

So Colorado's Constitution would appear to open the door...

Wanna bet the Feds will get involved, and the Supremacy clause will trump this one because of the specificity of language in the federal constitution? I could be wrong, but I'd take the bet...

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 09:40 PM
So Colorado's Constitution would appear to open the door...

Wanna bet the Feds will get involved, and the Supremacy clause will trump this one because of the specificity of language in the federal constitution? I could be wrong, but I'd take the bet...

The Federal Constitution only says that the State Legislatures must choose the way...the Colorado Constitution says that the people are also the legislature...there is no conflict with the Federal Constitution

unlurking
10-17-2004, 09:41 PM
So Colorado's Constitution would appear to open the door...

Wanna bet the Feds will get involved, and the Supremacy clause will trump this one because of the specificity of language in the federal constitution? I could be wrong, but I'd take the bet...
Either way, we will all be better if one of the candidates wins handidly and that Colorado votes are irrelevant, at least until next time.

This really should not have been broached during an election year.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2004, 09:50 PM
The Federal Constitution only says that the State Legislatures must choose the way...the Colorado Constitution says that the people are also the legislature...there is no conflict with the Federal Constitution

I'll bet a WHOLE lot of lawyers are going to disagree if it passes.

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 09:50 PM
Either way, we will all be better if one of the candidates wins handidly and that Colorado votes are irrelevant, at least until next time.

This really should not have been broached during an election year.

how does one candiadte winning the state make the votes irrelevant?

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 09:52 PM
I'll bet a WHOLE lot of lawyers are going to disagree if it passes.

about what? you have yet to show me anything in the Federal Constitution that states the State must choose how the EC votes are distrubuted through elected representatives and elected representatives ONLY. the only plausable argument I could see is the timing issue, but I think that argument is weak....besides I don't think it will pass anyway

unlurking
10-17-2004, 09:52 PM
I meant wins the majority of EC votes handidly. If Bush or Kerry wins by 20, then no matter what Colorado decides, it won't matter.

unlurking
10-17-2004, 09:53 PM
about what? you have yet to show me anything in the Federal Constitution that states the State must choose how the EC votes are distrubuted through elected representatives and elected representatives ONLY.
Doesn't matter. In this country everything is worth suing over. :(

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 09:54 PM
I meant wins the majority of EC votes handidly. If Bush or Kerry wins by 20, then no matter what Colorado decides, it won't matter.


oh you mean nationally?

unlurking
10-17-2004, 09:55 PM
oh you mean nationally?
Correct

At least in that situation, we won't have weeks of back and forth arguing about the Colorado EC votes.

HolyHandgernade
10-17-2004, 10:00 PM
If there is a tie, The House of Representatives chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President. So you would get a Bush/Edwards administration!

-HH