HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » What if both Sanders & Tr...

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:21 PM

What if both Sanders & Trump went 3rd party, creating a FOUR WAY race?

I am not recommending this, but it is an interesting concept.

Trump is not going to be allowed to be the GOP nominee or he is gonna leave on his own for some reason, I am pretty sure.

Bernie has all but lost the primary, but he has so many supporters and voters, he could do this.

Think about it, in a 4 way race

Kasich or Cruz
Trump
Hillary
Bernie


who would win?

EDIT reminded of the monstrosity known as the Electoral College, the undemocratic nightmare that keeps us from real democracy

55 replies, 1882 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply What if both Sanders & Trump went 3rd party, creating a FOUR WAY race? (Original post)
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 OP
firebrand80 Apr 2016 #1
MineralMan Apr 2016 #2
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #4
MineralMan Apr 2016 #9
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #11
MineralMan Apr 2016 #13
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #14
mythology Apr 2016 #18
Baobab Apr 2016 #30
MineralMan Apr 2016 #21
Kentonio Apr 2016 #37
MineralMan Apr 2016 #43
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #46
MineralMan Apr 2016 #48
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #45
MineralMan Apr 2016 #49
cureautismnow Apr 2016 #52
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #19
Blanks Apr 2016 #27
Kentonio Apr 2016 #41
Blanks Apr 2016 #42
nolawarlock Apr 2016 #44
Blanks Apr 2016 #47
JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #53
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #3
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #5
Baobab Apr 2016 #31
Skink Apr 2016 #6
Garrett78 Apr 2016 #15
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #17
Garrett78 Apr 2016 #22
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #33
Proud Public Servant Apr 2016 #7
Baobab Apr 2016 #32
kaiserhog Apr 2016 #8
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #10
auntpurl Apr 2016 #12
Baobab Apr 2016 #36
Throd Apr 2016 #16
hollowdweller Apr 2016 #20
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #23
Joe the Revelator Apr 2016 #24
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #25
Joe the Revelator Apr 2016 #50
ViseGrip Apr 2016 #26
brooklynite Apr 2016 #35
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #38
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2016 #28
Demsrule86 Apr 2016 #29
brooklynite Apr 2016 #34
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #40
Blanks Apr 2016 #39
warrprayer Apr 2016 #51
cureautismnow Apr 2016 #54
rateyes Apr 2016 #55

Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:21 PM

1. Ballot access nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:27 PM

2. I believe the voters would reject that by voting for

the two primary winners and ignoring the rest. Why? Because the end result of a divided 4-way race is election of a President by the House of Representatives. Who's in power in the House? The Republicans.

Do not wish for such an election. It would not end well at all. That's why voters would reject the third and fourth party candidates and vote for the candidates of the two major parties. Once they understood the consequences, they'd do the right thing.

Your hypothetical situation will not occur, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:29 PM

4. Oh yeah, I forgot to ask, so no person would have enough electoral votes, another

reason to get rid of that monstrosity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:32 PM

9. Getting rid of the electoral college is extremely unlikely.

That constitutional amendment would never get enough congressional votes, nor enough ratifying states. There is a reason for the electoral college. It's an interesting thing to research. I have neither time nor space to explain why it exists here on DU. But, it's easy enough to Google.

We will not be replacing that part of our presidential elections, I'm very certain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:35 PM

11. I dont see any argument where I would agree to keep it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:38 PM

13. OK, but it doesn't get decided by voters.

The Electoral College is a constitutional establishment. There is a well-defined process for amending the constitution. It's also a very difficult process, for very good reasons.

Something as basic as the Electoral College would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to change. I'm guessing impossible, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:40 PM

14. But why? Why wouldnt the majority of Americans tell their reps to repeal it?

Amend it, whatever the process would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:55 PM

18. For one reason the incentives it creates

 

Results in certain states being winners of more attention and or power.

Small states benefit in that they get more vote than their population would merit. Additionally swing states get more attention by virtue of being swing states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:28 PM

30. No matter HOW bad the two main parties candidates are, the US system is set up to make us win!

No matter how bad. Hooray!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:12 PM

21. The majority of Americans wouldn't do that, though.

Understanding the process of constitutional amendments is essential if you are going to discuss such things. Wikipedia has an article on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#United_States

I recommend reading that as a start toward understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:37 PM

37. Why would you assume a majority of Americans would study the full process before voting?

 

If there was a strong media case about a replacement being more democratic, then it would be likely to gain huge support from millions of people who knew very little about the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:21 PM

43. In the first place, I can't imagine it getting the supermajorities

in Congress. In the second place, state legislatures wouldn't vote to ratify in 3/4 of the states. See, it's politicians who would have to vote for this, not individual citizens. Those politicians do, or should, know the reasons for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:38 PM

46. What does the process have to do with whether or not the majority of Americans

would vote for candidates who would make this happen?

Why are you making an issue out of the process, when the issue is about why the people wouldnt want to repeal it in the first place?

Would EXISTING political office holders go for this? Maybe not, so you vote in those who will.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:45 PM

48. It's pretty simple, really. The people don't vote directly

on Constitutional Amendments. You're talking about something even further removed from the process. They'd have to elect legislators who would vote for it. That's an even higher bar, really. People wouldn't make that a high priority in legislative elections, really.

Traditionally, it has been very conservative people who have pushed for dumping the Electoral College. Ask yourself why that is.

It is deliberately very difficult to amend our Constitution. That was intentional on the part of the founders. It has been done 27 times, so far. Two of those amendments had to do with the stupidity that was Prohibition. People learned from that.

If you haven't read all of the amendments lately, it's something worth doing again. First, though, read the Constitution as it was originally written and pay attention to what was changed by the amendments.

It's a real pity this is no longer taught in our schools to any depth. I'm an old fart, so I remember a time when it was. Most kids yawned and rolled their eyes, but not me. I worked hard to try to understand it and why it was written as it was. I read background documents and much more. I'm funny that way.

It is very difficult to amend the Constitution, particularly when you're trying to change a major Article. That's deliberate. Right now, you don't like some aspect of it. Another time, it might save your butt. That's why it isn't easily changed. Temporary whims are not a good reason to change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:35 PM

45. Because they don't want to badly enough

 

On the whole people seem to think it has worked out OK in historical terms. Nobody ever talks about reorganizing the electoral college except people who are losing elections and want a convenient scapegoat rather than admit they're just not that popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:46 PM

49. Bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:30 PM

52. It worked out horribly in 2000. The least popular candidate was installed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:02 PM

19. The electoral college is terrible for California.

It is extremely unfair. The allocation of Senate seats is extremely unfair too. The Founding Fathers never imagined that one of the states would be as large, as much larger than any other state, as California is.

California/Idaho/Montana/Wyoming -- all the same number of senators.

But their populations? Far fewer people in Montana or Idaho or Rhode Island

California: 38,802,500

People per Electoral College vote: 691,662

Idaho: 1,634,464

People per Electoral College vote: 398,932

Montana: 1,023,579

People per Electoral College vote: 335,047

Wyoming: 584,153

People per Electoral College vote: 192,137

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

If someone lives in Wyoming, his or her vote is worth about 3 times mine when it comes to electing the president.

Very unfair. Not democratic at all.

It should be one person, one vote, and that is that. We should elect a president by the popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:26 PM

27. I disagree...

A populated area shouldn't get to decide how people get to live in less populated areas just because they are the majority.

The House of Representatives gives the populated areas more of a voice than the senate and they get more votes in the electoral college as a result. It makes it more difficult for urban dwellers to dictate how rural dwellers can live.

It's not perfect, but majority rules is not always the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:41 PM

41. Why should the vote of a rural dweller matter more in the direction of the country than an urbanite?

 

If there are considerably less people living in rural areas, then why should the rural vote be considered on a par with the urban vote? The President is suppose to represent all citizens equally, unfairly unbalancing the importance of some over others makes little sense. Should the vote of other minority demographics count more to balance out their lower numbers also?

Oh and what about urban dwellers in those states? Their vote also counts for much more than an urban dweller in a larger state. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:15 PM

42. When congress was established...

It took into account that we'd have a body that represented more populated areas equally (house of representatives) and a body that represents less populated areas equal to the more populated areas (senate) no legislation will be sent to the president until both of these bodies are satisfied.

The electoral college gives a vote to each of these representatives in the presidential election. That prevents areas that are extremely populated from completely overriding areas that are sparsely populated. It encourages finding common ground

I think it's a good system. it gives AREAS a voice in addition to people. That way the people who live next to national forests or national parks have an equal voice in the senate to someone who lives next to a city.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:28 PM

44. ^^^ this. (and your comment above it as well) ...

... Yes, those rural areas often go more conservative so it may seem easy on the surface to get rid of the electoral college but I don't think going by the popular vote is fair. Not only would it eliminate anyone outside of major cities, it would also eliminate the need for candidates to campaign anywhere but in major cities. I don't think the electoral college is perfect, but I do think they knew what they were doing when they made it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:44 PM

47. I don't side with the rural areas on much...

But if it weren't for this system, they'd have no voice at all. The reason that it is so important is that these are the areas of the country where food has historically been produced.

These days they seem to care disproportionately more about guns, abortions and God, but there is a lifestyle that is different than that of city dwellers and policies that effect people in populated areas shouldn't necessarily apply to people who live in the country.

Safety and sanitation needs are different for example and this system of representation prevents federal laws from covering things that should more appropriately be handled by municipal ordinance or state law.

There are actual arguments for states rights, unfortunately there are also things that shouldn't be left to the states and those are the things that the states want authority over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:30 PM

53. I'm very much less certain. I think we will determine the winner by the national popular vote

within 25 years. I'm not sure why you're so confident we'll never have the popular vote elect the president.

However, I put the chance of a constitutional amendment passing at 0%. Maybe that is what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:27 PM

3. The Republican establishment candidate.

 

4-way race, very likely no candidate gets 270 electoral votes. Race decided by vote of House of Representatives...246 of 438 are Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:29 PM

5. Forgot about that and another reasons to DEMAND the end of that archaic bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:30 PM

31. Send a letter to your Congressperson about that!

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:31 PM

6. That should have been rethought

Giving the house control

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:40 PM

15. I think Clinton would still get 270+ in that scenario.

Clinton would win a plurality (or majority) in enough states to reach 270. I suspect Cruz and Trump would split the vote to a greater extent than Clinton and Sanders would, but most folks would vote for the main 2 candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:54 PM

17. No, because the votes wouldn't be equally divided in every state.

 

In Texas, for example, Cruz beats Trump badly, and gets the winner take all electoral votes. Whereas in Florida Trump wins handily. Some Blue States may be so equally divided between Sanders and Clinton that one of the Republicans could win.
A 4-way race would be very difficult to predict, as no state can be considered 'safe' red or blue. Have to examine polls state by state, and the margins will be so small that a slight change can result in drastically different results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:13 PM

22. The west coast states would be the biggest concern.

But I think most Democrats and people on the left side of the political spectrum in WA, OR and CA would recognize that not voting for Clinton is very risky. In most other "blue" or swing states (like Florida and Ohio), I have no trouble envisioning Clinton winning a plurality, which is all it takes to claim all of the state's electoral votes.

Most are anti-spoiler, and I think the support for Sanders would dwindle were he to run as a 3rd party candidate. However, if Trump were to be denied the Republican nomination, I suspect he'd do quite well as a 3rd party candidate--not well enough to win, but well enough to prevent Cruz (or Kasich) from winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:32 PM

33. Each state delegation (the representatives in each state) get one vote.

 

Thus, the state of Alaska has the same number of votes for president as California - one.

You look at the map of the US, it's mostly red. In this case, acreage really does vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:31 PM

7. Then it would be 1948 again

With Trump as Strom Thurmond and Bernie as Henry Wallace.

As you may recall, that ended with Dewey (GOP) not defeating Truman (Hillary).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:32 PM

32. Maybe the next time Hillary and Donald are at their Delaware business address they can discuss it.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:32 PM

8. Not going to happen.

Trump will be the Republican nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:33 PM

10. A five way race. The Green Party already exists and will probably have a candidate

for president.

Bernie said he will not run as an independent. He is a man of his word. So yes, a four way race with the Greens, the Trumps, the Republicans and Hillary.

Bernie is starting a movement within the Democratic Party -- or at least his supporters are. We are going to take back our Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:36 PM

12. If it as you say...

and it's Greens, GOP, Trump, and Hillary, Hillary will win in an absolute bombshell landslide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:34 PM

36. Bombshell win for HR

HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:42 PM

16. I'd like to see that.

Not sure who would win but it would help break up the current duopoly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:05 PM

20. It's going to be Trump VS Clinton and it's going to be CLOSE

 

Most of the young Bernie supporters will set this one out.

The independents for Bernie will mostly move to Trump.

All the rest of the Sanders folks will move to Hillary.

Hillary's wanting to restrict gun ownership will kill her chances in a lot of the blue collar and rural areas. Trump will pick those up with his pro gun anti trade line.

Hillary will pick up the GOP's business support because Trump is talking trade and tariffs. Most of the economic republicans will move to Clinton.

Hillary will get the well educated suburban upper middle class vote and Trump will get the middle and lower middle class vote.

I think it will be interesting because I feel the GOP country club support will move to Clinton.

The democratic party will be economically like the GOP but on social issues more progressive than ever.

The GOP will be populist on economic issues but more racist than ever.

Trump is going to dial back the over the top things and focus on Clinton as SOS failing to make progress in the middle east. Being reckless security wise with her emails. He will also go after her speeches and expand on the crooked theme.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:13 PM

23. Nope, wont be close if it is Drumpf - but the GOP will say that a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:14 PM

24. The country would be better off. The two party system is a problem.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe the Revelator (Reply #24)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:16 PM

25. That seems to be the only reason, now, for keeping EC. Which is why I am for dumping it.

I would not be compatible, politically, with anybody who wants to keep it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:14 PM

50. I agree with you 100% on that.

 

I'd also be open to popular vote + run off's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:19 PM

26. The Green Party is on the ballot in all 50 states. Jill is not on the ticket, yet.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:33 PM

35. Will there be an open primary? I understand those are the only fair ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:39 PM

38. I don't think they're on all 50 state's ballots yet....

 

...but they say they expect to be. In 2012 they were on the ballot in 37 states, reaching 82% of the voters.
There are currently 5 candidates for the Green Party nomination. Jill Stein is by far the best known, and I'd be surprised if she didn't get the nomination. Their convention is in Houston in August.
Previous candidates have gotten a popular vote of about .4-.5%, except in 2000 when Nader got 2.5%. I think that number will be exceeded this year. Very possible the right-leaning third parties, like the Libertarians, also set records for votes. There's a whole lot of anger at the establishments of the two major parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:26 PM

28. Neither could win, but the one that attracts the most voters will decide the election.

Cruz won't do it because he is intelligent enough to know he can not win, running would end future hopes for a run. He will be running in 2020 and 2024 as a Republican, and does not want to screw the deal.

Kasich does not have the following to run, and can not win.

They will stand back and let Trump implode on his own.

Sanders said at the beginning that the does not want to elect a Republican, and he knows politics well enough that an independent run would elect whichever Republican wins their nomination process.

Finally, there are sore loser laws that make an independent run pointless, except to throw the election to the other side.

[link:http://georgetown.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/pdf/99-4/Kang.PDF|Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation
]
Third parties are spoilers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:28 PM

29. No this would not help us at all

Probably, it would throw the race to the House, and we sure would not win. People talk more than two parties but look at Europe, often a government with minority support is in power for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:32 PM

34. It's-not-possible

Post Convention, it will be too late to get ballot access everywhere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:40 PM

40. That is true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:39 PM

39. Trump should fire up the 'Reform' party...

Right now instead of seeking the republican nomination. He's got the republican nomination in the bag, but what nobody seems to recall is that in the early states, Trump won by less than 50%.

Trump University is being sued and I'm sure a lot of his supporters who think he's a great businessman aren't aware of his beginnings, his inheritance, his bankruptcies, his tax avoidance. There's something for everyone to complain about with Trump. In fact if you wanted to point to one person who demonstrates what is wrong with the system, Trump would be a good one to point to.

That and the fact that Dubya was one our 'business' presidents with his MBA and business experience and Herbert Hoover was the other. There's quite a bit of time to educate voters on how that worked out.

We've got til November to paint Trump in whatever light we want. He has no chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:17 PM

51. interesting concept.

interesting election.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:49 PM

54. If no one gets to 270, here's what happens:

"What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:23 PM

55. We might get Trump and Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread