Election Day Scenarios

As a Republican, allow myself to be the first to congratulate President Obama. To Senator McCain, you proved to everyone tonight that you are a great American. I thank you for your service to this country.

Actually, strike my "checks and balances" comment. This is not a "checks and balances" discussion, which would explain the relative roles of the different branches of government. Rather, it's a federalism discussion.

Actually, strike my "checks and balances" comment. This is not a "checks and balances" discussion, which would explain the relative roles of the different branches of government. Rather, it's federalism discussion.

Dustyroads, we are not a "democracy." We are a representative republic. The Electoral College and, indeed, Congress are constitutionally required to prevent California and New York (or any other population center) from weilding too much power. Checks and balances. All points you are raising have been raised before, and the founders decided on the best form of goverment for all of the people.

If a candidate won but received 4 million less votes than the "looser" how could we possibly say that we are a democratic country? I know that for any change to the system to take place a constitutional amendment would have to take place and that the small states would block it. The system unfairly favors these people. If they refused to be fair think riots in the streets.

This is an awful article. It offers an uninformed view of the Electoral College. There is a very important reason we have the College: fair representation. In fact, it's the same reason we have two houses of Congress. On top of that, the article offers the typical tripe: if McCain wins, it's awful for the nation and the world; If Obama wins, the light begins to shine and the world heals itself.

As for Wikipedia, the lack of accountability from authors opens it up to false entries. Why do you think controversial subjects are blocked from editing? I'd recommend you check out http://www.itworld.com/nlsblog070306 or http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001157.html for interesting discussions of the most infamous Wiki author, "Essjay," who falsely claimed authority in a number of subjects and wrote 16,000 entries for Wikipedia on that basis. Is Essjay an authority worth trusting?

Invasion, the 1860 election had 4 candidates, but 3 were from the same party. The Democrats nominated different individuals on a regional basis as a deliberate attempt to throw the election into the House for the final decision. It sounds crazy, but it had happened in 1824 and the winner of the popular vote (Andrew Jackson) lost the presidency to John Q. Adams, who came in 2nd place in the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Invasion, if you are a history prof you should know that Lincoln was elected in 1860 and 64.

I doubt the Electoral College vs. Popular Vote will be an issue this year. But, I think you guys are looking at the wrong side of the equation. I agree with ptyler, electoral college works exactly as it was designed to. The problem is the overemphasis of the popular vote and all the national polls that keep on tracking the popular vote. Eliminate those, stop reporting the popular vote, and focus solely on how the candidates are doing at each state, and the problem is automatically solved.

History Prof, You are correct in that it is unlikely for the electoral college to be thrown out anytime soon. Altough you must admit that it's original intent, really no longer exists. As a history teacher myself, I think it only right that you mention that Abe Lincoln did win the 1856 election by less than 40 percent, but there were FOUR canididates in that election. That is not something we have in this election. Also, you have no evidence about your Wiki accusations, purely opinion.

I thought this whole article was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Some of you seem to be taking it seriously. Am I mistaken?

M.Nolan - Cannon was saying that if Obama wins popular vote by 4 million votes and McCain wins electoral college this would engender a loss of prestige. Read before you comment brother.

I am tired of people who don't even know what this country is about talking about the end of the electoral college. This nation is comprised of seperate states, not just different areas we call by different names. The electoral college is the nearest to perfect way to elect a national president as possible. That is why the constitution leaves most issues open for the states to decide. But together we make up the greatest country ever imagined. Popular vote means nothing.

I would also point out that a version of the Amar plan has failed in 27 state legislatures, and been vetoed in 2 more. I hardly think that constitutes a credible attempt to eliminate the electoral system-there just isn't enough popular support for the necessary legislative reform, even though approximately 70% of votes say they support it. Remember, even the Equal Rights Amendment died, even though citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of equal rights for women.

I'm familiar with the Amar plan, but in my opinion as a legal history scholar, it won't pass the constitutionality test. Quite frankly, it violates several clauses of the Constitution, one of which was actually cited in the Wiki article (much to my surprise). I would recommend that you look at some more authoritative sources if you're interested in abolishing the Electoral College, as most Wiki entries are crafted and edited by very partisan individuals.

historyprof: you should read the Amar plan...(its on wikipedia) four states have already adopted it...

Actually HistoryProf, there is a movement by many states to effectively get rid of the electoral college by passing legislation to award their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner once enough states have joined in. It only takes states with 270 electoral college votes passing such laws to mark the end of the electoral college. You can get that without rural states. These laws have not had great momentum, but the sceenario above would move them.

Where does Cannon get off saying that a tight win by McCain would engender "a steep loss of prestige for the U.S. in world public opinion"? Where do these "journalists" get this cr..p? The president of France has said, on record, that he thinks Obama is naive! If Obama, the most undeserving candidate to date, wins this election the "hard feelings" it will engender will be the final nail in the media's coffin and will result in at least 49% of this nation turning on B.O.!

Yes #4 is the most distressing and not least of which because it would lead the end of the electoral college. Without that there would be little reason for a candidate to campaign anywhere other than the big states like NY and Calf. The midwest states would really become flyover states in more than name. Both candidates have run a reasonably clean race although this election has been a low point for the nations media. America has survived far worse than either of these men. We'll survive.

There have been more than 700 legislative proposals to eliminate the Electoral College. None has even come close. The most recent well-publicized attempt came after the 2004 elections, when Senator Hilary Clinton swore she would bring the system down in retaliation for the 2000 election. I'd also point out which president was directly elected with the lowest percentage of the popular vote in history: Abraham Lincoln, who polled less than 40 percent. Not bad company to be in.

The electoral college isn't going away no matter what happens. To abolish it would require a Constitutional Amendment, and there is no possibility of passing such an amendment with the consent of 3/4 of the states-the less populous states would effectively be eliminated from the process. Bill Clinton's 1992 Ten State strategy already demonstrated that many states could be bypassed-but doing so will not be institutionalized by eliminating the Electoral College.

bkovitz: Or, Many may realize what some pollsters and journalists have been saying for some time now: exit polls are notoriously inaccurate.

I find scenario 2 to be so improbable its not worth mentioning as an option. If McCain eked out victories in Florida and Pennsylvania, and then won in Ohio (and also won in Indiana, North Carolina, and Missouri) he would still lose the electoral college 270-268. He need to pass Obama in either Virginia, Nevada, Iowa or Colorado as well. 4 is slightly more probable. But Obama has a lead in Pennsylvania polls well outside the margin of error. 2 and 4 are essentially miracle scenarios.

The scary scenario is a "close" election where McCain "wins" but the election results don't match the exit polls, and once again the results look suspiciously like there has been tampering. If this happens, Obama must declare that he does not accept the election results, and millions of people must march in the streets to demand a real investigation and a real election.

Your last statement is not completely accurate - Obama attached McCain's age demographic (remember the computer/telphone ad) and used ads calling McCain erratic, playing off the 2000 Bush smear campaign. Your 'narrative" is biased.

I'm sick of reading how the media is biased against McCain. Any negative reports are the direct result of the dirty campaign tactics McCain used to smear Obama and Dems. No - negativity was NOT equal on both sides. Obama has been a perfect gentleman throughout almost 2 years of campaigning, in spite of pointedly personal false attacks from McCain & Palin. Obama only "attacked" McCain's policies, which we need to know in order to make our decision.