I'd be all for this

I'd rather see an Obama landslide, but there would be a great deal of satisfaction in this as well...

I don't like Obama, but I believe in the Electoral College. I can live with that.

Implode? Please. It didn't implode back in 2000.

Man, am I glad the Republicans ignored us when we were biatching about the Electoral College a few years ago :)

I still think it is outdated, but I am willing to wait until after this election to sort that out.

But I haven't even voted yet!

I'd like to see this happen just to see people who defended the EC in 2000 attack it in 2008.

Obama needs you to be at the polls, so be sure that you get up early Tuesday, November 11th and VOTE!

Makes sense. The only thing that can fix the last popular/electoral clusterfark is another popular/electoral clusterfark.

The Onanist: Implode? Please. It didn't implode back in 2000.

that is because Al Gore was a pussy. You think Karl Rove and the GOP would take this laying down?

Now that's what I want to see. Republicans rioting in the streets.

And riot police opening fire with live ammo.

I got polled last night. It was great.

/really
//Rasmussen loves me
///prolly just a one time thang though.

I support the EC because I think it helps reduce both the desire of the loser to recount every favorable district and it reduces the impact of large concentrations of morons, whose ever morons they may be. That said I can see why some people oppose it.

Obama will take the popular vote back, too. This has been a bad end of the week for McCain/Palin. They already lost 2 points in Gallup from the RNC bump.

I'd LOVE to see this pan out, if only to see both sides make the exact opposite arguments they did in 2000.

We like to form conspiracy theories about "The Media" so here's a conspiracy theory that also explains the EC.

People realized that the Electoral College is outdated a long long time ago, but that was around the time "The (Television) Media" started to become the sole source of election coverage. Instead of attempting to cover one bigass popular vote race, they decided it would be easier to cover 50 smaller races. Could you imagine somebody attempting to explain a popular vote of over 100 million people?

"Our latest projections are in and they show Barack Obama leading John McCain 21,497,661 to 20,811,489. We'll be back in 10 minutes with an update from the next half million voters."

/Forgive me, I'm having a very boring day.

Can't wait to see which triangulating corporate puppet wins this time.

The Great EZE: We like to form conspiracy theories about "The Media" so here's a conspiracy theory that also explains the EC.

People realized that the Electoral College is outdated a long long time ago, but that was around the time "The (Television) Media" started to become the sole source of election coverage. Instead of attempting to cover one bigass popular vote race, they decided it would be easier to cover 50 smaller races. Could you imagine somebody attempting to explain a popular vote of over 100 million people?

"Our latest projections are in and they show Barack Obama leading John McCain 21,497,661 to 20,811,489. We'll be back in 10 minutes with an update from the next half million voters."

/Forgive me, I'm having a very boring day.

Next time, just say "teh jooz"

bulldg4life: I'd like to see this happen just to see people who defended the EC in 2000 attack it in 2008.

And vice versa.

Who cares as long as Obama wins

/Hope the country learned their lesson

Yanks_RSJ: bulldg4life: I'd like to see this happen just to see people who defended the EC in 2000 attack it in 2008.

And vice versa.

I don't expect to see much "defending" beyond "You didn't complain when it was to your benefit so suck it up biatches."

Yanks_RSJ: bulldg4life: I'd like to see this happen just to see people who defended the EC in 2000 attack it in 2008.

And vice versa.

I don't know they'd be defending it, per se, beyond "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! EAT IT!"

Neeek: Yanks_RSJ: bulldg4life: I'd like to see this happen just to see people who defended the EC in 2000 attack it in 2008.

And vice versa.

I don't expect to see much "defending" beyond "You didn't complain when it was to your benefit so suck it up biatches."

Fark you and your twenty-three seconds. :p

If you step away and look at our electoral college from a distance, it makes no sense. My friends in South America still can't get their heads around it.

"So... a candidate can get a majority of the vote and still lose because of a geographic concentration of idiots?"

"Yeah, basically."

Nabb1: I don't like Obama, but I believe in the Electoral College. I can live with that.

Don't worry. He's going to lose both. I guarantee it.

Castimirr: I support the EC because I think it helps reduce both the desire of the loser to recount every favorable district and it reduces the impact of large concentrations of morons, whose ever morons they may be. That said I can see why some people oppose it.

I used to be opposed to it, until I realized that without it, candidates would just go to heavily-populated areas (CA, NY, etc.) to campaign. The EC gives the rest of the country a voice.

This isn't a new debate either. This is precisely the reason why we have both a Senate and a House of Representatives. Larger states favored having the HoR, and smaller states favored the Senate since it gave them equal say. A two-house legislature is a compromise of these two positions, and since the number of seats on the EC is directly related to the number of representatives (in both houses) a state has, the EC too is a compromise of big states vs. small states. Going with a straight popular vote for President would be akin to having only a House of Representatives, while giving each state an equal number of seats on the EC would be akin to having only a Senate.

sigdiamond2000: Nabb1: I don't like Obama, but I believe in the Electoral College. I can live with that.

Don't worry. He's going to lose both. I guarantee it.

Really? You work for Diebold?

You a betting man?

At this point I really don't care much who wins, so long as after it's over I never, ever have to hear anything more about Sarah Palin, ever. She's been mentioned, in barely two weeks now, more than all the other candidates put together in fark headlines. So whether she goes back to Northern Exposure-ville, or becomes VP, I'll be happy if she utterly vanishes from the political scene.

nekom: I'd LOVE to see this pan out, if only to see both sides make the exact opposite arguments they did in 2000.

The Democrats won't have to make those arguments. They can openly acknowledge that it's a shiatty system and then mock Republicans for not doing anything to get rid of the EC for the last eight years.

Occam's Chainsaw: sigdiamond2000: Nabb1: I don't like Obama, but I believe in the Electoral College. I can live with that.

Don't worry. He's going to lose both. I guarantee it.

Really? You work for Diebold?

You a betting man?

I believe its the 'Our country is really farking stupid' angle.

Wait -- polls taken in early September predict what's gonna happen in November...????

I think the Electoral College, as originally conceived, would be fine. A deliberative body choosing a person who had to at least ostensibly appear disinterested. However, this only worked when the President was the humble constitutional officer charged with enforcing the laws (thus Washington's preferred term "chief magistrate"), standing in Congress's way if they went all stabby on the Constitution, and commanding the military if the nation was attacked. That was it.

He wasn't the caretaker of our national soul.

He wasn't expected to give us "meaning" in our life or to rally us to a "higher purpose" than our own individual wants and needs.

He wasn't allowed to exercise any discretion over whether or not the United States went to war.

He would have been seen as an attention whore if he gave a dozen public speeches in a year.

He never would have dreamed of presuming to tell Congress what it should do, except in a veto message citing Constitutional concerns.

He wouldn't have been help personally responsible for, and thus entrusted with power over, everything that happened to any one, anywhere in the world.

Having said all that, I can see how having the illusion of a popular election, which produces popular vote totals, but then having a system that sometimes says the winner of that vote loses, can seem really farked up to the democracy-minded observer.

DarthBrooks: Obama needs you to be at the polls, so be sure that you get up early Tuesday, November 11th and VOTE!

hey - didn't i see you in baltimore in 2000! and remember, your rent must be paid before you can vote!

stay classy, GOP!

oldebayer: At this point I really don't care much who wins, so long as after it's over I never, ever have to hear anything more about Sarah Palin, ever. She's been mentioned, in barely two weeks now, more than all the other candidates put together in fark headlines. So whether she goes back to Northern Exposure-ville, or becomes VP, I'll be happy if she utterly vanishes from the political scene.

Step 1: Turn off your TV
Step 2: Get Farky
Step 3: Enable a filter to delete any headline with "Palin" on Fark
Step 4: ?
Step 5: Sanity and profit?

This is what I did.

Since this coont is likely to actually push the BUTTON when push comes to shove with Russia, I'd rather not even know what she's saying. I don't want to hear her voice, and I don't want to hear the talking points she's been given by the Rove Administration.

/that fat fark is going to cause one big damn celebratory grease fire when he goes to Hell.

CowboyNinjaD: The Democrats won't have to make those arguments. They can openly acknowledge that it's a shiatty system and then mock Republicans for not doing anything to get rid of the EC for the last eight years.

I don't really think we need the electoral college, but my point is it's either fair or it isn't. It's not fair when your guy wins and unfair when he doesn't, it's the system. If Obama pulls a Bush in 2008, I can all but assure you the left and the right will use each other's arguments from 2000.

2000: left: Bush stole the election! right: He won it fair and square, deal with it.
2008: right: Obama stole the election! left: He won it fair and square, deal with it.

Hypocrisy is funny.

quickdraw: I got polled last night. It was great.

/really
//Rasmussen loves me
///prolly just a one time thang though.

I got polled last week as well.

Churchill2004: I think the Electoral College, as originally conceived, would be fine. A deliberative body choosing a person who had to at least ostensibly appear disinterested. However, this only worked when the President was the humble constitutional officer charged with enforcing the laws (thus Washington's preferred term "chief magistrate"), standing in Congress's way if they went all stabby on the Constitution, and commanding the military if the nation was attacked. That was it.

He wasn't the caretaker of our national soul.

He wasn't expected to give us "meaning" in our life or to rally us to a "higher purpose" than our own individual wants and needs.

He wasn't allowed to exercise any discretion over whether or not the United States went to war.

He would have been seen as an attention whore if he gave a dozen public speeches in a year.

He never would have dreamed of presuming to tell Congress what it should do, except in a veto message citing Constitutional concerns.

He wouldn't have been help personally responsible for, and thus entrusted with power over, everything that happened to any one, anywhere in the world.

Having said all that, I can see how having the illusion of a popular election, which produces popular vote totals, but then having a system that sometimes says the winner of that vote loses, can seem really farked up to the democracy-minded observer.

That's pre-New Deal thinking right there.

Lionel Mandrake: I'd rather see an Obama landslide, but there would be a great deal of satisfaction in this as well...

Obama landslide means a "Mandate". Gives him more clout.

/Yes, I know, the press said Bush had a mandate in 2004.
//The press are idiots.

Hey stupidmitter, you do realize that;s how Bushy-buns got into office, don't you?

Nabb1: I don't like Obama, but I believe in the Electoral College. I can live with that.

Agreed -- the Electoral College are the rules as they stand, so whoever wins that should win the Presidency.

AntiNorm: I used to be opposed to it, until I realized that without it, candidates would just go to heavily-populated areas (CA, NY, etc.) to campaign. The EC gives the rest of the country a voice.

So now they spend all their time in OH, FL, PA...

Personally, I don't care - some part of the country ends up getting a lot of attention, other parts get none. I am rather glad to be in solidly blue territory (CA)...I get way fewer political ads/mailers/phone calls/etc...

A practical reason why the Electoral College is still a good thing to have around:

In 2000, we had the presidential race come down to a few disputed votes in Florida. And for a while the country didn't seem all that far from imploding. But at least all the recounts and legal actions were confined to one state, so at least the other 49 states could still get some business done.

Now imagine if we had a pure popular vote contest, and the election came down to a few thousand votes. We could have politically-motivated recounts in dozens of states. We could have dueling legal actions in every state court system, plus dozens and dozens of federal courts. There's a very real chance that the country could implode.

nashBridges: You don't think the people who attacked it in 2000 would make the same flip?

No, I think democrats and the left are above reproach and any consideration otherwise is blasphemy?

Watching all the Republican talking heads screaming how the EC needs to be tossed aside and pretending 2000 didn't happen...it would be so lovely. I would have zero problem if Obama won the White House while losing the popular vote. Sweet, sweet revenge.

The Onanist: Implode? Please. It didn't implode back in 2000.

I came here to say this.

America will not implode.

No matter who is in charge of the government America will not collapse. No one will be forced into camps until they declare Jesus as your Lord and Savior. No politician is going to come in and take all your money to fund some woman in welfare with 14 kids. Each side and what ever media is backing a certain candidate would love to have us believe that. Reality is somewhere in between.

I don't care. Just as long as Obama's in there... McSame can have whatever he wants

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. When this happened back in 2000 -- Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote -- the Republicans rolled out their media machine and declared that the electoral college is the only count that counts. They screamed bloody murder at the notion that perhaps the system needed further examination, and pre-emptively accused the Democrats of trying to steal the election.

So what are they going to say when the shoe is on the other foot?

I could care less who wins since we're all farked either way it goes. But I am going to crap myself with sheer joy over all the conspiracy theories, the temper tantrums of the Democrats, and the multitudes of verklempt whiney cry babies on Fark when McCain wins this election.

It's like waiting for Christmas. The closer the day comes, the more excited I get. I'll be hardly able to sleep elections eve.


Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is a THREEPEAT! If I can't have a threepeat, that's okay. But a threepeat sure would be nice.

Love,

Meaty :D

quickdraw: I got polled last night. It was great.

sarcastrophe: I got polled last week as well.

Sluts, the both of you.

/poll-smokers