 |
| |
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Hypothetical scenario:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, Kerry takes all the states that went blue last time:
CL, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI.
(And, apart from maybe New Mexico and Pennsylvania, I'd say that is all very likely.)
Let's say he takes New Hamshire--also very likely. That would bring his electoral college total to 264.
That would leave him 6 EC short of the Presidency.
But what if he got one more state: Nevada? (I'd estimate this is 50/50, or very very close to that.)
That would put him at 269--and, ladies and gentlemen, we would have a tie.
This is very very possible. (Could also happen if he wins Colorado but loses NH & NV--much less likely, but possible.)
Can you imagine the fallout this would have? The tiebreaker is that Congress decides--the House picks the Prez (one vote per state), and the Senate picks the Veep. Bush-Cheney would win.
There could very well be riots over this. Scary prospect.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Why was the electoral college designed so that a tie would be possible?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Guynemer,
I don't see how Bush can lose in Colorado, and I really don't think that Bush will win in New Mexico. Pennsylvania is a possibility - but wouldn't trade be a big issue in that state?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
He meant CA, I think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Why was the electoral college designed so that a tie would be possible? |
The bigger question:
Why was the electoral college designed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
I'd also assume that the vote in Congress would NOT be totally along party lines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
(besides, the South would clean up ) |
This wouldn't be a North-South "civil war". In fact, a more appropriate name would be anarchy.
Democrat and Republican voters are spread along all states and no state has enough of a proportion to act as one. Chances are if this "civil war" that monkspider seems to get a hardon for ever did come about, he wouldn't be killing some jackass from Florida: he'd be killing his neighbor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
I don't find it likely, it's just an interesting prospect.
Personally, I think it'll be a tight election, but I think ultimately Bush will lose in Florida and maybe New Hampshire this time, and I doubt he'll pick up any new states. That'll cost him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Democrat and Republican voters are spread along all states and no state has enough of a proportion to act as one. Chances are if this "civil war" that monkspider seems to get a hardon for ever did come about, he wouldn't be killing some jackass from Florida: he'd be killing his neighbor. |
Yeah, and that's my point. Seriously: How many people do you know who would kill each other over politics? I mean ****, I hate Bush, but I'm not gonna shoot my neighbor for voting for him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
"ultimately," he did 4 years ago too...so? |
Debatable, but again, exactly my point: He "lost" really because too many stupid voters didn't understand a childishly easy ballot. Even Pat Buchanan came out and said something along those lines, IIRC. They aren't so stupid as to make the same mistake twice.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2004 07:02
. Rioters will get beat down 
|