Just had a thought: The Electoral College votes December 13

[UrbScotty]

What if Kerry 'wins' the electoral vote tally and the popular vote on November 2 by a 270-268 margin, and for six weeks is called "President-elect Kerry," but then on December 13, when the electors meet to elect the President, two electors vote for Bush instead of Kerry?

Now, in some states, the electors must vote for the winner of that state. In Michigan, for example, not voting for the winner will cost you your vote, and someone else votes for the President and Vice President.

I was thinking of that one elector in DC who abstained in protest of "Taxation Without Representation" in 2000. :mad: What if two of them abstained or voted for Bush?

So, to the shock of all of humanity and against the wishes of the United States, Bush gets a second term. :scared:

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Two words: Tom Finney.

You have Republican legislators who are weasely enough to try such a scam. And if it happens, the Democrats had better be willing to call it treason and counter as such.

[serryjw]

2. That would be CIVIL WAR!

After 2000 there is no way nayone can tell be this is ok......don't even think it!

[mconvente]

3. Do I smell corrupt bargain #3?

Corrupt bargain #1 - John Adams royally screws Andrew Jackson, even though Jackson had more electoral votes.

Corrupt bargain #2 - Shrub gets his repub cronies on the Supreme Court to end the true vote count

corrupt bargain #3 - We aren't gonna settle for this crap!

And remember people, Jackson got his revenge against Adams in the election of 1828, where he beat Adams fair and square! It's gonna happen again this year when the Dems re-win the presidency!

[Lancer]

4. Two other disputed US Presidential elections

1876—Rutherford B. Hayes (R) "won" the electoral college over Samuel J. Tlden, (D), who won the popular vote. BUT, some Southern states submitted two, duplicate sets of electoral votes. When they were thrown out, an electoral commission of 15 members was set up to decide th election. Here's your corrupt bargain: 8 of the commissioners were Republicans, and all voted along party lines. Hence, there's no President Tilden in your history books.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the electoral college by nearly 900,000 votes to Grover Cleveland, but had a 65-vote majority in the EC. That's the only time such a lopsided EC victory has occurred, and of course Cleveland came back to defeat Harrison handily for a second term in 1892.

The 1892 victory began Cleveland's second, non-consecutive term. Upon the assassination of 21st President James A. Garfield in 1881, VP Chester A. Arthur succeeded him. The Republican party did not renominate Arthur in 1884, instead choosing Cleveland. He defeated James G. Blaine, served four years and was running for re-election against Harrison when done in the by the EC in 1888.

[Lancer]

5. All of the states use

the "winner take all" system for casting of electors' votes that you mention, except Maine and Nebraska.

Wyoming is considering going to a proportionality system as well. (All it takes is passage of a bill in the state legislature.)

[prouDem]

6. Not to nitpick,

but isn't it Colorado that's considering the "winner NOT take all" system? I hadn't heard about Wyoming, perhaps they are too. I think it's a good idea. Why shouldn't Kerry get some EC votes out of Texas and Florida (after Jeb rigs it again...)

[crispini]

7. proud to say

we have a TX legislator, Gene Green (I think) who is cosponsoring a bill to get RID of the EC. Keep yer eyes open... it's still in the beginning stages...

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. Consider California

How many of those 54 electoral votes would end up in Repuke hands?

Look at either the infamous Repuke "red county" map, or the map of what counties went for Herr Gropenator in the recall abomination.

The best thing to do with the EC is abolish it completely.