How can U win but still lose?

Winner Could Lose Presidential Race By Michael James ABCNEWS.com Nov. 2 — As the presidential candidates approach Election Day neck and neck, there’s speculation that George W. Bush or Al Gore could pull a Grover Cleveland. Cleveland is the last of three presidential candidates in history to get more votes than his opponents, yet still lose the election. “The fact that [Bush vs. Gore] is a close election raises the specter,” says Neal R. Peirce, a syndicated columnist. Contrary to what some people may believe, American voters do not directly elect the president. Instead, they vote for special electors from their state. It takes votes from 270 of the 538 members of the Electoral College to win the White House. “Those of us who are critics of the system believe there would be severe credibility problems for someone who has just lost the election to win the electoral vote,” adds Peirce, co-author of The Electoral College Primer 2000. A pair of professors at Columbia University in New York City believe that if this year’s race is close, a split decision between popular and electoral votes could happen. Robert Erikson and Karl Sigman have crunched poll numbers and considered where Bush and Gore are most likely to win. They have determined Bush needs a 2 percentage point margin of victory with America’s voters to have an even shot at winning the electoral tally. If Bush’s edge with voters is 1 percentage point, Gore has a 90 percent chance of an electoral victory, according to their study. “Bush has big leads in several states, but they account for a more modest number of electoral votes,” says Erikson, a political science professor. “By contrast, Gore has smaller leads in states that yield a greater number of electoral votes. With a close popular vote, the electoral edge goes to Gore.” Turmoil Possible If that happens, it could produce political fireworks, observers say. “There would be an outcry and, yes, there would be pressure and, yes, there would be demands that we reform the system,” says Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. Most electors are directed to follow the will of the majority of their state’s voters. But in about half the states, electors’ votes are not bound by law. Political watchers say that could mean a whole new campaign, long after the polls have closed. “There would be a lot of jockeying among the Electoral College for them to switch their votes,” said Craig Crawford of the Hotline political digest. “Can you imagine the wheeling and dealing?” Different Political Times Three times in American history, a candidate for president has gone down in defeat even though he was the popular choice of the American people. And once, a candidate who finished second in both popular and electoral votes became president anyhow. But times were different then, and many think today’s electorate wouldn’t allow such an event to occur without demanding change. “The last time was 1888, and we weren’t quite at the democratic fervor that we have now,” Peirce said. “Women didn’t vote yet, blacks were just getting the right to vote, and it was quite a different world.” There are already calls, as there have been hundreds of times in the past, to eliminate the Electoral College. On Wednesday, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., announced they are backing a push to adopt a constitutional amendment to have presidential elections decided by popular vote. “It’s time to put this electoral dinosaur permanently in a museum,” Durbin said. Has Happened Before That dinosaur dates back at least 175 years. In 1824, Andrew Jackson outpaced John Quincy Adams in both popular and electoral votes, but because of additional candidates in the race neither Jackson nor Adams gained a majority of the 261 electoral votes available that year. Under the Constitution then and now, if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the decision goes to the House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote, and that year they chose the second place finisher — Adams. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became president when he eked out one more electoral vote than Samuel Tilden, even though Tilden had defeated him at the polls. The electoral total was 185-184 for Hayes; the popular vote was 50.9 percent to 47.9 percent for Tilden. It happened again in 1888, when Cleveland, the incumbent president, beat Benjamin Harrison at the polls, 48.6 percent to 47.8 percent. Despite the popular vote, Harrison defeated Cleveland 233 electoral votes to 168 to become president. Incidentally, four years later, Cleveland once again beat Harrison at the polls, but in that case managed to regain the presidency by defeating him in electoral votes as well. There have been some close calls in twentieth century elections as well, according to Lawrence D. Longley, Peirce’s co-author on The Electoral College Primer 2000. “In 1960, the tally was so close that it also could be said to be a misfire since we will never know whether Kennedy or Nixon had the greatest vote,” he said. “1976 came close to a divided verdict election — a few thousand votes different in two states could have elected Ford over Carter despite Carter’s clear national vote lead of 1.7 million votes.” Bush and Gore Not Worried This year, representatives for the Bush and Gore campaigns say they are not thinking about the possibility of a split decision between the electoral and popular vote. “Al Gore is fighting to win the Electoral College and the popular vote, and he is not planning for anything else,” says Doug Hattaway, national spokesman for the Gore campaign. “We do not expect that to happen and have not spent any time concerned about it,” says Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. “We expect that the popular vote and the Electoral College will go the same way, and are optimistic they will go toward George W. Bush.” __________________ ...they'd play up the candidacy of Harry Browne to pull a nader on bush. I don't think they're that smart though. ;0) __________________ The Constitution should be modified so the President is elected by popular vote. I don't believe this scenario of winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College will happen this year. If Al Gore did win the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College I would consider Gore to be president. I would also support whatever needed to be done to make him president under this scenario. [Edited by sbp on 11-02-2000 at 09:45 PM] __________________ I agree SBP, this electoral college sham is a left~over from pre-computer days __________________ FINALLY@! people who have some political sense and agree with me. I've been trying to convince government professors/teachers and relatives that the electoral college is a useless relic from our nation's past, but no one usually listens. It's just as useless as the British royalty...except that we don't get any natinal pride from the electoral college...so it's even more useless! I still think that the UK should give the royal family 10 pounds a piece and tell them to F- off... They do nothing worthwhile, but they cost countless dollars every year. ProMinx __________________ Quote: Originally posted by renots I agree SBP, this electoral college sham is a left~over from pre-computer days Oh but wait a second . . . the electoral college is part of the Constitution . . . you mean parts of the Constitution can become outdated??? REALLY??? Hmmmm . . . Ya know, I think that the 2nd Amendment is outdated . . . a left-over from Reconstruction era days. I'm not going to comment further on this because I'm quite sick of the entire debate, but I thought it was interesting that you could admit that something in the Constitution could POSSIBLY be outdated and require change! __________________ "The Constitution should be modified so the President is elected by popular vote." You don't take away people's rights because you find those rights outdated. You change the Constitution by amending it! Hmmmm . . . Ya know, I think that the 2nd Amendment is not outdated . . . :0) [Edited by sbp on 11-03-2000 at 06:42 PM] __________________ They should appoint a special committe to investigate the functionality of each ammendment in today's society. Well, maybe not, but it is a thought... __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Butch Quote: Originally posted by renots I agree SBP, this electoral college sham is a left~over from pre-computer days Oh but wait a second . . . the electoral college is part of the Constitution . . . you mean parts of the Constitution can become outdated??? REALLY??? Hmmmm . . . Ya know, I think that the 2nd Amendment is outdated . . . a left-over from Reconstruction era days. Have fun when the goosesteppers are kicking down your door. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Butch Quote: Originally posted by renots I agree SBP, this electoral college sham is a left~over from pre-computer days Oh but wait a second . . . the electoral college is part of the Constitution . . . you mean parts of the Constitution can become outdated??? REALLY??? Hmmmm . . . Ya know, I think that the 2nd Amendment is outdated . . . a left-over from Reconstruction era days. I'm not going to comment further on this because I'm quite sick of the entire debate, but I thought it was interesting that you could admit that something in the Constitution could POSSIBLY be outdated and require change! if i'm not mistaken, the reconstruction era followed the civil war, and not the revolutionary war...which is when the bill of rights was made, but i am just an engineering student, so I could be mistaken. And yes, I do believe that parts of the consitution can be outdated, but I do not believe that the second amendment is one of those outdated parts. ProMinx __________________ Oh yeah, and unlike a lot of you, i do believe that this election will see another Dark Horse president enter the gates to the white house. Anyone who enjoys semi-political humorous songs should download "William Henry Harrison" from They Might Be Giants. It's quite humorous, in my opinion. ProMinx __________________ ProMinx . . . you are correct, and that is exactly what I meant. I believe it became outdated after the Reconstruction Era. It was not an error on my part if that is what you were trying to imply. __________________ "I believe it became outdated after the Reconstruction Era." Explain why u think it became outdated after that era Butch. __________________ If I do, then it is just going to continue this whole thing and I'm really quite sick of it . . . SOOOOO . . . I respectfully decline. __________________ [Butch] Ya know, I think that the 1st Amendment is outdated . . . a left-over from Reconstruction era days. So instead of amending the Constitution like its supposed to be done I'll support passing as many laws as possible infringing upon people's first amendment rights. Yeah thats the ticket. Thats so cool everyone. And because I'm not concerned about loosing my first amendment rights no one else should be. And if someone dares to object this usurption of rights I'll say their wrong and tell them they have nothing to worry about. Because I know Uncle Sugar will take care of little old me. He's sooo trustworthy. And who cares about the Constitution anyway. Its an old outdated document that should be shreded and thrown into the waste basket where it belongs. And because I say something is outdated that makes it outdated. So there! [/Butch] __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Butch If I do, then it is just going to continue this whole thing and I'm really quite sick of it . . . SOOOOO . . . I respectfully decline. I respectfully decline to explain why I believe people should have freedom taken away from them. In fact its quite sickening to me that people won't go along with this. SOOOOO . . . whats wrong with these fools anyway? __________________ details like due process don't seem too important to some people these days... __________________ I guess that is the point to gc debate; parties unnamed gnow they could never get a constitutional amendment banning gun possesion passed so they're tryin' the round about way, just like with all those BS presidential orders that r still in force because we R still officially in "a potential state of emergency" but just keep suckin' on that Media Teat Butch and I'm sure everything will turn out AOK ;0) __________________ Quote: Originally posted by sbp [Butch] Because I know Uncle Sugar will take care of little old me. He's sooo trustworthy. And who cares about the Constitution anyway. Its an old outdated document that should be shreded and thrown into the waste basket where it belongs. And because I say something is outdated that makes it outdated. So there! [/Butch] ROFL :0) Mavi forum