Posted on 10/11/2012 9:41:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If the presidential election were to play out according to RealClearPolitics' latest polling averages, Mitt Romney would surpass President Obama by 1.0 percent in the nationwide vote.
Cue the balloon drop and pop the champagne corks in Boston, right? Not exactly.
Under the same current polling scenario, Obama’s relative strength in the battleground states could propel him to victory over Romney in the Electoral College.
A candidate has been elected president while losing the popular vote four times in American history (including John Quincy Adams, who in 1824 finished second in the popular vote to Andrew Jackson but was elected by the House of Representatives when none of the four candidates won a majority in the Electoral College).
The scenario is always an unlikely one, but given the tightness of the 2012 contest, an electoral victory on the heels of a popular vote defeat isn’t out of the question for Obama or Romney.
In the days before the 2000 election, George W. Bush’s campaign reportedly prepared talking points to dispute the democratic fairness of what was then seen as a more likely outcome -- that Al Gore would win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I hear that the ballot count will be done by a firm in Spain. Anyone else heard this? Anbyone but me concerned? Can we guarantee control of our electoral process?
I heard that the actual vote count will be done by an agency in Spain. Anyone else hear this? Anyone but me concerned?
OOPS
We have two CD's in SW Pennsylvania alone which sent RATs to congress but voted for McCain. Paul Ryan has won seven elections by landslide proportions in his Wisconsin District but the GOP presidential candidate has carried it only once (Bush, narrowly, in 2004).
The leftists are always whining that we should be more like Europe or Canada. A nationwide congressional district voting system would be a step in that direction without throwing out what the electoral college was designed to do in the first place-- prevent a few large cities from dominating every election.
Gerrymandering can also be addressed at the state level. Iowa, just to name one example, has very neatly drawn congressional districts and Gerrymandering is prohibited.
What's your alternative?
The RCP average has been heading back Obama for the past day or so.
Will be interesting to see what happens.
I believe we will win, but wish it would be expanding again on RCP.
I should have clarified....42 out of 435 districts were competitive....in the presidential race (not the actual congressional race in that district).
We just re-districted in Kansas. The GOP control everything; but, infighting still screwed it up. It eventually went to court; and, our districts are as irregular as ever.
I can’t imagine what a mess redistricting would be, if it had national implications...it would never leave court.
My alternative? We could have the states vote for president. And by that I mean have the state legislatures vote for electors, in accordance with the un-ammended constitution.
Other than that option (impossible today), I’m fine with the current system. If I were looking to reform the electoral process, I would concentrate on voter ID and double voting. Fix that, and the rest falls into place.
I have heard that, too. Twenty six states, and supposedly Soros has a substantial interest in the company.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2877117/posts
That system was mainly used until 1820. South Carolina used it until 1860. All but seven states switched to the current prevalent winner take all method in 1824, which was a major fuster cluck election.
There is nothing constitutionally to prevent a state legislature from taking over the power to select presidential electors again. Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea if they did. But there would be a huge outcry.
A presidential election brings out a lot of morons who otherwise wouldn't even bother to vote.
Anyway, I can understand your point of view being that you live in a relatively small homogeneous state. I hope you can understand mine living in the mirror opposite type of state.
I can certainly understand the problems in Pennsylvania...and Philadelphia is ruining the whole stew. But, this is not unique to one state.
Contrary to popular belief, states like Kansas are not that homogenous. It went 56/42 for McCain....not far off from Obama’s 54/44 split in Pennsylvania. There are strong pockets of liberalism in Kansas...and a district style apportionment in Kansas would result in the loss of one (perhaps two) GOP electors.
Anyway, my solution wouldn’t be an overhaul on the entire system - just stop the fraud in Philadelphia....and all the major cities for that matter. I understand Ohio now has an id law...I imagine Barry will have a very tough time in Ohio, as a result.
Been there. Done that. We got a voter ID law passed as a booby prize. One fudgepacker judge suspended its implementation for this election because we couldn't absolutely prove there was not an infinitesimal chance of one legitimate voter being denied.
The fudgepacker actually said that it would be a worse travesty of justice than 1000 illegitimate votes getting through. Never mind that the 1000 fake votes void up to 1000 legitimate votes.
“Been there. Done that. We got a voter ID law passed as a booby prize”
Oh, I am aware...and its terrible. I absolutely believe that Pennsylvania would go GOP in this election, for sure, if there were a voter ID law in place.
My response to the judge: If somebody isn’t smart enough to obtain a free ID, do we really want their input at the voting booth anyway?
I hope some an O’Keefe type follows a bus around, and documents multiple voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.