|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 22 new of 409 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 388 of 409:
| 
Dec 15 15:47 UTC 2000 |
I thought Gore did OK. I'd said earlier that someone would have to deliver
"the mother of all concession speeches" when this was over, and he came up
with a reasonable approximation. Very little whining (though he did say he
disagreed with the result). No doors left open. Good enough.
|
gull
|
|
response 389 of 409:
|
Dec 15 15:50 UTC 2000 |
Re #387: Because no matter who won, about 50% of the population was going to
hate them for it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 390 of 409:
|
Dec 15 16:29 UTC 2000 |
Ah. It wasn't "meaningless" in October, but it is in December. Is that what
you are saying?
|
aruba
|
|
response 391 of 409:
|
Dec 15 19:30 UTC 2000 |
All of the TV commentators were falling all over themselves saying how
sincere and "graceful" Gore sounded. I thought he sounded fake, just like
always.
|
mdw
|
|
response 392 of 409:
|
Dec 15 21:55 UTC 2000 |
I don't know that he sounded "graceful", but to me he at least sounded
"honest" and "sincere". I think it was ok for him to say that he both
disagreed strongly with the supreme court and agreed to abide by their
decision.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 393 of 409:
|
Dec 15 22:04 UTC 2000 |
re #386: "being on the losing side ... is probably better for one's
long-term political prospects."
Sorry, Steve, but that sounds to me like the lamest sort of
rationalization -- "those grapes were probably sour anyway.."
Bush, Jr. gets to be the next president of the United States
and this is a move which is better for Gore's long-term political
prospects than it is for Bush's? Please..
|
gelinas
|
|
response 394 of 409:
|
Dec 15 22:30 UTC 2000 |
In *this instance only*, yes, being on the losing side is not the end of
the world. ("A plus" is possibly overstating the matter.) Others who
have lost in a similar way have subsequently won. As has been pointed out
before today. :)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 395 of 409:
|
Dec 16 00:18 UTC 2000 |
I still find ludicrous the idea that losing was better for Gore's
long-term political prospects than winning would have been.
|
aaron
|
|
response 396 of 409:
|
Dec 16 01:18 UTC 2000 |
As do I. I think he's pretty much done.
|
mdw
|
|
response 397 of 409:
|
Dec 16 01:47 UTC 2000 |
I think the argument runs that if he had succeeded, he would have been
faced with a very slightly republican congress & senate, and that that,
plus any continued legal challenges from the bush team, would have left
him a relatively weak president. Now that he's failed, he has another
chance to run in 4 years, and if he succeeds then (after the presumable
hash that evil Bush guy will make of things) he might have a shot at 8
years as a much stronger president. I think there are a few too many
iff's there to make this necessarily a likely case, but since it's not
impossible, it's surely not safe to say that Gore is 'pretty much done'.
I think we'll all have to wait a couple of years, so that we all have
time to digest this election and decide what we think really happened,
and how we feel about the players. If it turns out (for instance) after
the press gets through counting the Florida votes, that Gore should have
won, that is likely to make some people think differently or more
positively regarding Gore and his failed attempt to have those votes
counted.
|
aaron
|
|
response 398 of 409:
|
Dec 16 02:06 UTC 2000 |
Oh, I just think he's pretty much done as a presidential candidate. Unless
he gets another office, or somehow miraculously transforms himself into an
"elder statesman," I think he will be remembered by the people (and by
his party) as an ineffectual candidate. Why re-nominate a guy who couldn't
cut it the first time, particularly following eight prosperous years while
facing opposition from a candidate as weak as Bush.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 399 of 409:
|
Dec 16 02:20 UTC 2000 |
Everyone should recall that Nixon rose from the ashes of 1960 to succeed in
1968 and 1972. So there is no "rule" that "Gore is forever done".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 400 of 409:
|
Dec 16 03:01 UTC 2000 |
Andrew Jackson lost the first time he ran, too.
|
aaron
|
|
response 401 of 409:
|
Dec 16 04:08 UTC 2000 |
Nope. No "rule". Just probability. Hey - maybe Dukakis will come back, also.
|
senna
|
|
response 402 of 409:
|
Dec 16 05:45 UTC 2000 |
Gore could come back, but he wasn't who I was talking about. I was
talking about the losing *side*. The dems could gain a post-Mulrooney
style windfall in four years, and democratic voters get all sorts of
peck opportunities at republicans for that same period.
|
sno
|
|
response 403 of 409:
|
Dec 16 14:56 UTC 2000 |
Two thoughts...
Hillary Clinton is now the "leader" of the Democratic Party.
Gore's concession speech was nothing of the kind. In fact, key
factions in the Democratic party are lobbying Electors as we speak
to convince them to cast their vote Democrat instead of Republican.
Should they succeed, I can bet my house and cars that Gore will
again "rescind" his "speech". We may yet see more extraordinary
turmoil as the intent to subvert the common expectation continues.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 404 of 409:
|
Dec 16 15:17 UTC 2000 |
I've often wondered how this "concede" thing started - and kept going -
when the final decision has always been in the hands of the electors. I
think everyone should shut up until the electors vote.
|
sno
|
|
response 405 of 409:
|
Dec 16 15:25 UTC 2000 |
After reading through this conference, I see that my second issue
is already a major topic of discussion.
|
scott
|
|
response 406 of 409:
|
Dec 16 15:44 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, and that Bush was laying plans for the same sort of thing first.
|
scg
|
|
response 407 of 409:
|
Dec 16 18:52 UTC 2000 |
Well, normally how it works is that the winner in teh election (by state, of
course) pretty much automatically becomes the President, and the Electoral
College is a mere formality. That's been pretty universally recognized as
"how it works" for a long time now, and generally as a good thing, even if
the laws were never changed to require it. I think everybody knows, no matter
what their personal interests in the matter might cause them to try to do,
that having the electoral college act independantly of what they were elected
to do would not be right, and concessions after the original election are thus
expected (and, I would hope, taken seriously).
I've certainly heard the rumors that some Democratic supporters are urging
Bush electors to change their votes. It's generally possible to find factions
in any political party who are willing to do an end run around the accepted
processes for their party's short term gain. I certainly hope that Al Gore
is not a part of such efforts, and that he really does know better than that.
Nothing I've seen on the subject has suggested that he has any involvement
in this, and his public statements certainly haven't encouraged it, but I
suppose if he had any private involvement in this it would probably be kept
pretty well hidden.
Anyhow, I don't expect it to come to that. Much as I would prefer that Al
Gore become President, and much as I think the Supreme Court's ruling was
clearly off base, respect for the process is what keeps this system flowing
smoothly and nonviolently. As I said before, I do think we're due for some
Constitutional ammendments codifying the way the system has been functioning
over at least the last several decades, and if there are any "faithless
electors" this time around, that will do a lot to reenforce that view.
|
polygon
|
|
response 408 of 409:
|
Dec 16 19:36 UTC 2000 |
Damn, I got cut off and lost a response again.
Remember that a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 of both houses of
Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. The Electoral College is
not going to be eliminated or changed as long as any criticism of it
is seen as a partisan attack on GWB, his administration, and the memory
of his administration.
The Electoral College was not changed after 1888, either, and I bet
Republicans criticized anyone who demanded such a change as soreheads
who were gratuitously slamming Benjamin Harrison.
If we're not going to change it, we're going to have to live with it.
Living with it means (1) accepting that the popular vote winner is
sometimes going to lose, and (2) accepting that the electors are at
least theoretically free to vote their consciences.
Some states have laws that restrict this, but they are widely regarded as
unconstitutional, or at least highly questionable. To enforce elector
discipline would require, again, a constitutional amendment, and the
strong support of BOTH parties.
If faithless electors cause any change in the process this Monday,
even if it just throws the race into the House of Representatives,
THAT is likely to cause a widespread bipartisan consensus that the
process needs to be changed.
Before November 7, 2000, political scientists predicted almost unanimously
that an outcome where the popular vote winner didn't win the presidency
would automatically cause public outrage and a constitutional crisis.
That turned out not to be true. Nobody really has any serious objection
to simply following the steps outlined in the Constitution.
Similarly, if a number of Bush electors change their mind and change the
outcome, whatever their reasoning, they are simply following the steps
outlined in the Constitution. Bush supporters might be angry, but they're
not going to start an armed revolution.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 409 of 409:
|
Dec 17 02:27 UTC 2000 |
(I've decided to hold my comments on faithless electors for the item started
to discuss them.)
|