Elections If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college..

Chiefspants · 10-19-2012, 09:55 AM

Would it be time to abolish the electoral college for good?

Bowser · 10-19-2012, 10:03 AM

For the longest time, I figured it would be the other way around with him losing the popular and winning the electoral. The debates have changed my line of thinking.

But to answer your question, probably yeah. It's probably needed to be done away with/retooled for quite some time, anyway.

headsnap · 10-19-2012, 10:12 AM

Chiefspants · 10-19-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsnap

Q

2000, I know.

jettio · 10-19-2012, 10:18 AM

We will always have state by state electoral college because it gives more power to smaller population states. To amend the constitution you need 2/3 house and senate to get a resolution to the states and then you need 3/4 of the states ratifying.

You could get 2/3 house but it is unlikely that 2/3 of senators would go for that because more than 1/3 of them prefer that their state gets disproportionate power.

More than 1/4 of states benefit from the disproportionate power so it would never get ratified by 3/4 of states.

IMO, the only way an amendment affecting the electoral college would happen is if faithless electors changed the election result from the result accepted on election day. all that amendment would do is turn the electoral votes into intangibles and not have them be designated people.

**Saul Good** · 10-19-2012, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Would it be time to abolish the electoral college for good?

No

Sweet Daddy Hate · 10-19-2012, 10:59 AM

We kept it for Bush, so nah.

**mlyonsd** · 10-19-2012, 11:13 AM

Direckshun · 10-19-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jettio

IMO, the only way an amendment affecting the electoral college would happen is if faithless electors changed the election result from the result accepted on election day. all that amendment would do is turn the electoral votes into intangibles and not have them be designated people.

Agreed.

Hog Farmer · 10-19-2012, 11:19 AM

Too many colleges have too much power. We need to change that. Like Iowa state for example. And KSU doesn't have enough.

JMO

jjjayb · 10-19-2012, 11:19 AM

Inspector · 10-19-2012, 11:23 AM

Rioting in the streets, right?

Someone has to riot.

mnchiefsguy · 10-19-2012, 11:26 AM

It would be the strongest argument for its abolishment. The typical argument is that the EC provides a voice for the small states in the Presidential Electoral processs. If Obama were to lose the popular vote but win the EC, he would do so carrying two of the most heavily populated regions of the country (New England/New York State, California, West Coast). An argument could be made that the EC no longer provides a voice in the electoral process for smaller states like MT, ID, etc.

Not saying that that is my personal argument, or that it would happen. I highly doubt it, but it would come up for discussion.

Cannibal · 10-19-2012, 11:54 AM

If Romney wins the popular vote, but loses electoral college, I'm assuming the Wingers will be just fine with that, like they were in 2000.

FishingRod · 10-19-2012, 11:56 AM

I really haven’t thought it though but perhaps a compromise of letting the states kept their extra representation of the electoral collage but changing from an all or nothing to allocating them proportionally might be more fair. So Mitt Might Win TX 25 to 13 and Obama might win CA 35 to 20 or something like that.

10-19-2012, 09:55 AM
Chiefspants Do what? Join Date: Jul 2007 Casino cash: $966611	If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.. Would it be time to abolish the electoral college for good?
Posts: 3,519

10-19-2012, 10:03 AM	#2
Bowser What's Clark gonna do, Cotton? Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: In Transition Casino cash: $50964615	For the longest time, I figured it would be the other way around with him losing the popular and winning the electoral. The debates have changed my line of thinking. But to answer your question, probably yeah. It's probably needed to be done away with/retooled for quite some time, anyway.
Posts: 45,271

10-19-2012, 10:12 AM	#3
headsnap Da! Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Space Station #5 Casino cash: $56828	Q
Posts: 15,399

10-19-2012, 10:18 AM	#5
jettio MVP Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $20203	We will always have state by state electoral college because it gives more power to smaller population states. To amend the constitution you need 2/3 house and senate to get a resolution to the states and then you need 3/4 of the states ratifying. You could get 2/3 house but it is unlikely that 2/3 of senators would go for that because more than 1/3 of them prefer that their state gets disproportionate power. More than 1/4 of states benefit from the disproportionate power so it would never get ratified by 3/4 of states. IMO, the only way an amendment affecting the electoral college would happen is if faithless electors changed the election result from the result accepted on election day. all that amendment would do is turn the electoral votes into intangibles and not have them be designated people. __________________ Where Ignorance is Bliss, 'Tis Folly to be Wise. __ Last edited by jettio; 10-19-2012 at 10:40 AM..
Posts: 6,547

10-19-2012, 10:59 AM	#7
Sweet Daddy Hate Let's Hate! Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: ABQNM Casino cash: $1058446	We kept it for Bush, so nah.
Posts: 16,477

10-19-2012, 11:13 AM	#8
mlyonsd Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Spink, SD Casino cash: $28897	No.
Posts: 22,242

10-19-2012, 11:19 AM	#10
Hog Farmer Good Donkey = Dead Donkey Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $5081685	Too many colleges have too much power. We need to change that. Like Iowa state for example. And KSU doesn't have enough. JMO
Posts: 12,682

10-19-2012, 11:19 AM	#11
jjjayb Veteran Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Back in K.C. baby!!!! Casino cash: $1035257	No.
Posts: 4,365

10-19-2012, 11:23 AM	#12
Inspector MVP Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: K.C. Casino cash: $26545	Rioting in the streets, right? Someone has to riot.
Posts: 6,344

10-19-2012, 11:26 AM	#13
mnchiefsguy MVP Join Date: Dec 2003 Casino cash: $11113162	It would be the strongest argument for its abolishment. The typical argument is that the EC provides a voice for the small states in the Presidential Electoral processs. If Obama were to lose the popular vote but win the EC, he would do so carrying two of the most heavily populated regions of the country (New England/New York State, California, West Coast). An argument could be made that the EC no longer provides a voice in the electoral process for smaller states like MT, ID, etc. Not saying that that is my personal argument, or that it would happen. I highly doubt it, but it would come up for discussion. __________________
Posts: 5,736

10-19-2012, 11:54 AM	#14
Cannibal I'm wearing a cardboard belt! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Bible Thumping Country Casino cash: $44457	If Romney wins the popular vote, but loses electoral college, I'm assuming the Wingers will be just fine with that, like they were in 2000.
Posts: 7,501

10-19-2012, 11:56 AM	#15
FishingRod Veteran Join Date: Mar 2006 Casino cash: $36175	I really haven’t thought it though but perhaps a compromise of letting the states kept their extra representation of the electoral collage but changing from an all or nothing to allocating them proportionally might be more fair. So Mitt Might Win TX 25 to 13 and Obama might win CA 35 to 20 or something like that.
Posts: 2,429

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode