No, people will whine and biatch ad complain for a few weeks, but then new episodes of Survivor and American Idol will come out and everyone will get on with bigger, more important matters.

yes, just like they have called for the end of the electoral college every other time that happened in our history.

I am torn between making fun of the dude who thinks that this has happened a lot or making fn of the submitter who thinks that John McCain has a shot in hell of winning anything other than a consolation prize.

No because we will all be in Iraq.

Forgive me. I like posting this:

http://electoral-vote.com/

Croooow!: this has happened a lot

sarcasm.

It does amuse me that there are people out there capable of imagining scenarios where McCain isn't utterly crushed by Obama.

Of course they will. If the opposite happens, then they won't. Obama must win if white people are ever going to get this whole slavery thing off of our backs. Reparations, my good man. By any means necessary.

People have already been talking about junking the electoral college. This is not new.

You people are all delusional. RON PAUL will win because RON PAUL is awesome. RON PAUL!

Did Obama when the popular vote for the Democratic primary?

Of course they will.

dudemanbro: No because we will all be in Iraq.

The way to win is for all of us to go.

Bevets: Did Obama when the popular vote for the Democratic primary?

Yes,he did.

eddyatwork: You people are all delusional. RON PAUL will win because RON PAUL is awesome. RON PAUL!

jcooli09: The way to win is for all of us to go.

Exactly.

Probably. Doesn't mean it's right.

Bevets: Did Obama when the popular vote for the Democratic primary?

The who in the wut now?

In all honesty, I've been calling for an end to the electoral college for a while. It is outdated, and there should be no reason for anyone to win the popular vote and lose the election.

GAT_00: there should be no reason for anyone to win the popular vote and lose the election.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Bevets: Did Obama when the popular vote for the Democratic primary?

No he did not. He lost the national popular vote 17144503 to 16218299. When you add in the caucus votes, the total moves to a total of 17332557 (Hilliary) to 16608537 (*)

Bevets: Did Obama when the popular vote for the Democratic primary?

Yes. Link (new window) If you "Count Every Vote!", and not just the ones Clinton wanted you to count, he comes out on top, barely.

Though admittedly, it was very close, especially when you consider 35-36 million people voted, and he won by less than 40k, it amounts to a .1% difference. The tally for pledged delegates, superdelegates, and states won is far more significant, and because delegates are how they award the nomination, thinking people following the campaign knew it was over after Obama's 11 wins in a row. He hadn't clinched it, but Hillary would need a rocket up her ass to catch up.

Wouldn't going to a popular vote marginalize people who live in rural areas even more than now? Politicians would only focus on population centers and not give a damn what the people in states like Montana or Wyoming think.

Oh.. wait a sec. They do that now. Never mind.

/Montanan

The only thing hampering Obama Barack is his name. It's not a WASP, Catholic, Anglo-Saxon, French-Norman, name at all. And his middle is name is Hussien. Believe me, that will be mentioned by the brilliant minds who deliver us media these days.

Sun God: Believe me, that will be mentioned by the brilliant minds who deliver us media these days.

I dunno, so far (from what I can remember) the politicians and one radio host that have gone off on it, one in an interview and one before a McCain rally, have been roundly criticized and attacked for such a thing.

I can't imagine in this era of political correctness and absolute fear at the thought of racism in any forms that an Obama name attack would hold much weight at all for any length of time.

Democrats biatched when it happened to Gore. It ALMOST happened to Bush in 2004 you know. Had Kerry won a few thousand more votes in Ohio, he would have won the election with Bush having the popular vote. Then it would have been Republicans biatching about it.

The question of the electoral college should never be tackled right after an election, or with the mentality ZOMG MY GUY LOST, FIX IT! It should be based on whether or not it makes sense in theory, and it only does if you believe that smaller states should be disproportionately represented so that they have more of a say in things.

Get out there and do your patriotic duty this year, vote Republican and eliminate the question from the table.

Those in the system will lose too much control without the electoral college. I still think they need some form of representative vote as popular vote will make densely populated states even less important than they are now.

If McCain wins but Obama gets the popular vote, will Americans call for age limits for presidential candidates.

The Electoral College is the most underrated institution of our democracy. You honestly want to give more power to Californians? Fark that.

Answer: YES.

Not only that, but there will be some serious riots going down. Douchebag Bush beating douchebag Gore that way pissed off the hardcore democrats. Nobody else gave a shiat. If warmonger McCain beats the black kid like that, I'll go burn down a Circuit City myself.

That might be a nice byproduct of an otherwise horrible situation.

The electoral college is absurd. There's often talk of it giving more power to certain regions, which is risible enough. But what people ought to be saying is that it gives more power to individuals in certain states. It ought to be one person, one vote. It's just undemocratic otherwise.

Subby axed us... will Americans call for the end of the Electoral College?

Answer: No. Does the Electoral College need to go? Yep. It's more outmoded than slavery.

/2c
//Slashies 08

Well, if any politician was interesting in every vote counting, I would think they would be into this. But they aren't and the people are just lemmings. Meh.

FTA:
So what happens if this scenario comes true? Well, Obama would be in the position of arguing that the popular vote matters more than the electoral vote (and would be wholly justified in doing so), even though the constitution clearly disagrees.

It would be interesting to see a professor of constitional law make that argument.

However, the time to change the rules is before you play the game. If Congress doesn't want this scenario to happen after 2012, they should get their act together now and push for an end to the Electoral College. You don't just nullify things because you don't like the result. And I say this as someone who thinks Obama is a somewhat better choice for President than McCain, despite being in the same party as the majority in Congress.

While they are at it, they can also replace Plurality voting with Approval or Condorcet, and get rid of the spoiler problem at the same time.

That's a pretty improbable "if", subby.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: That's a pretty improbable "if", subby.

Can't think of the last time that happened.

People weren't upset because Gore won the popular vote. They were upset because of the voting irregularities in Florida.

The electoral college is an indispensable facet of our government. The Founders knew what they were doing when the decided on the method of electing the President. I have no interest in giving all the power to elect the President to essentially five or six states.

filth: The Electoral College is the most underrated institution of our democracy. You honestly want to give more power to Californians? Fark that.

Never mind that they're the driving force behind our economy now that we've shipped all manufacturing to China. Maybe we should break down the number of electoral votes by contribution to GDP.

internutthead: Wouldn't going to a popular vote marginalize people who live in rural areas even more than now? Politicians would only focus on population centers and not give a damn what the people in states like Montana or Wyoming think.

Oh.. wait a sec. They do that now. Never mind.

/Montanan

Actually, all the flyover states like Montana have far far more power than they deserve since they all have 2 Senators, which is basically the population of the whole state.

Which is why people in real states pay taxes, and those who live in flyover country, live off taxes.

wolvernova: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: That's a pretty improbable "if", subby.

Can't think of the last time that happened.

I'm talking about McCain getting elected. Try reading the headline. Heck, I'll save you the trouble of getting reading comprehension mastered: "If McCain wins."

wolvernova: Not only that, but there will be some serious riots going down. Douchebag Bush beating douchebag Gore that way pissed off the hardcore democrats. Nobody else gave a shiat. If warmonger McCain beats the black kid like that, I'll go burn down a Circuit City myself.

Burn down a Wal*Mart instead.

/or even better, burn down two

Pocket Ninja: It does amuse me that there are people out there capable of imagining scenarios where McCain isn't utterly crushed by Obama.

Croooow!: I am torn between making fun of the dude who thinks that this has happened a lot or making fn of the submitter who thinks that John McCain has a shot in hell of winning anything other than a consolation prize.


I assure you by the time the election roles around the only people that will vote for BHO is black people and super libs -
We have some good shenanigans in our pocket to destroy Oboma , I know for a fact our October surprise will devastate Obama -

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: internutthead: Wouldn't going to a popular vote marginalize people who live in rural areas even more than now? Politicians would only focus on population centers and not give a damn what the people in states like Montana or Wyoming think.

Oh.. wait a sec. They do that now. Never mind.

/Montanan

Actually, all the flyover states like Montana have far far more power than they deserve since they all have 2 Senators, which is basically the population of the whole state.

Which is why people in real states pay taxes, and those who live in flyover country, live off taxes.

This expressed disdain and contempt, if you will, for your fellow citizens is precisely why the electoral college is a good thing. It is very much why it was put into place, actually.

Objectesticle: Pocket Ninja: It does amuse me that there are people out there capable of imagining scenarios where McCain isn't utterly crushed by Obama.

Croooow!: I am torn between making fun of the dude who thinks that this has happened a lot or making fn of the submitter who thinks that John McCain has a shot in hell of winning anything other than a consolation prize.


I assure you by the time the election roles around the only people that will vote for BHO is black people and super libs -
We have some good shenanigans in our pocket to destroy Oboma , I know for a fact our October surprise will devastate Obama -

OOOOOGA BOOOOOOOOGA!!!!!

Tastes Like Chicken: Bevets: Did Obama when the popular vote for the Democratic primary?

Yes. Link (new window) If you "Count Every Vote!", and not just the ones Clinton wanted you to count, he comes out on top, barely.

Though admittedly, it was very close, especially when you consider 35-36 million people voted, and he won by less than 40k, it amounts to a .1% difference. The tally for pledged delegates, superdelegates, and states won is far more significant, and because delegates are how they award the nomination, thinking people following the campaign knew it was over after Obama's 11 wins in a row. He hadn't clinched it, but Hillary would need a rocket up her ass to catch up.

I might be crazy, but that chart doesn't say anything near what you say it does. Obama only wins that vote count by excluding Michigan. If you include Michigan, he still loses unless you give him all the uncomitted votes and the caucus estimates (which are worthless).

I love the arguments against the EC. They're perfect examples of repeating what the person heard and taking that opinion as their own without attempting to think about the subject.

One person one vote will NOT "give more power" to cities/large states. It will not give too much power to small states.

It just gives the person in the city, the person on a farm an EQUAL voice.

Mr Logo: People weren't upset because Gore won the popular vote. They were upset because of the voting irregularities in Florida.

Florida was more direct, but there was a lot of noise about this then as well.

If pigs can fly, why o why can't I?