Say Kerry got 200,000 more votes in Ohio, enough to swing that state and thus the election, but still nearly 3 million votes less than George Bush. What would the fall out have been? If the Republicans were robbed in the same way Democrats were four years earlier, might a movement to abolish the electoral college have gotten real support?
What if Kerry lost the popular vote but won the election (US, 2004)?
- Thread starter Sirius
- Start date
It seems logical. And yet, we're talking about a very difficult process (amending the Constitution.)
You need bipartisan support at all levels of government. Getting two-thirds of state legislatures or congress to agree on something this momentous in 2004 seems unlikely. It seems even less likely as time goes by. A really big bipartisan effort with a questionable payoff for one party or the other...
For one thing, you might kickstart something like the Tea Party movement; a backlash against moving away from the intentions of the founders. The likely suspects are already going to be fed up with the GOP a bit earlier than OTL because Bush's failure to be a "true conservative" is an easy way for conservatives to explain his loss. So rather than lionize him and his "rightful presidency," the right could easily just abandon him and say he legitimately lost because he wasn't enough like Santorum (or whoever.)
You need bipartisan support at all levels of government. Getting two-thirds of state legislatures or congress to agree on something this momentous in 2004 seems unlikely. It seems even less likely as time goes by. A really big bipartisan effort with a questionable payoff for one party or the other...
For one thing, you might kickstart something like the Tea Party movement; a backlash against moving away from the intentions of the founders. The likely suspects are already going to be fed up with the GOP a bit earlier than OTL because Bush's failure to be a "true conservative" is an easy way for conservatives to explain his loss. So rather than lionize him and his "rightful presidency," the right could easily just abandon him and say he legitimately lost because he wasn't enough like Santorum (or whoever.)
Or the Popular Vote State Compact builds some steam. That movement is for the states themselves to decide that once 270 electoral votes worth of states pass a similar law, than the winner of the national popular vote will win their electoral votes.
I see him going down like Jimmy Carter really. Someone will challenge him in 2008 (Obama? Hillary?) Kerry would likely still win it (because he's approval would still be in the mid 40s I guess since the 2008 crash hasn't happened yet). The race will be neck and neck like 1980 was until October and once the Stock Market collapses and the house bubble fully bursts a tossup election turns into a rout that hasn't been seen since 1980/84.
I disagree, it really depends on how he handles the disaster in the short term. If he's seen as acting immediately to provide economic relief and improve things it could lead to a popularity spike due to the rally around the flag effect. Especially if the relief involves helping families facing foreclosure.
Yes, that would be a way around appearing to compromise (or "collude," depending on who you're talking to) with the other party.
I think you've got something there.
I don't necessarily see Kerry going down like a straw man in 2008 simply because he lost the popular vote in 2004. After all, we have a real world example of that NOT happening IOTL 2004.
Of course ITTL, Bush DID lose, so I can see the establishment predicting a Kerry loss in 2008 based on the TTL '04 result. But we know (from OTL's example) that it's not necessarily the case.
The people will want it after two elections like that in a row. I think both of The Party(s) will fight it since their whole election 'strategy' is based around electoral votes. Could you imagine if they had to go out and actually convince a majority of the voters that their message is better? Considering all but a handful of States are almost guarenteed to grant their E-votes to one The Party or another, gathering the popular vote would be far more effort than they are used to.
I'm still skeptical. Fighting against party politics has never proved sustainable in the modern era.
In order to get the amendment process rolling, you need party politicians to approve the process. 2/3rds of Congress have to agree to the proposal. Then it goes to the state legislatures. 3/4ths of state legislatures have to approve.
These are all partisan politicians we're talking about.
But the popular vote compact jpj1421 mentioned, that's another story. That doesn't require an amendment. It could still be thrown out in court if anyone attempts to use it, but the likelihood of more states signing on is higher in this scenario, I will definitely grant you.
In order to get the amendment process rolling, you need party politicians to approve the process. 2/3rds of Congress have to agree to the proposal. Then it goes to the state legislatures. 3/4ths of state legislatures have to approve.
These are all partisan politicians we're talking about.
But the popular vote compact jpj1421 mentioned, that's another story. That doesn't require an amendment. It could still be thrown out in court if anyone attempts to use it, but the likelihood of more states signing on is higher in this scenario, I will definitely grant you.
Let's make Kerry's margin of victory in Ohio very small, perhaps on the order of 2,000 votes. Now we have the 1960 election in reverse. Nixon was convinced that he got cheated in Illinois and Texas, but decided not to demand a recount. One reason was that even if he got the result reversed, he'd still be the popular vote loser and would enter the presidency under a cloud.
You can bypass Congress altogether by having 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention to amend it directly. This has never happened historically, however.
A constitutional convention. There is a can of worms, a large one. Is there anything that would regulate such a event? Or, would it be wide open to every possible group with a agenda that can get in the door, or even the parking lot? that is to say would it turn into a free for all with the 'admendment' coming in the form of a 800 page document of badly worded asspirations?
Forgive me for being pessimistic here.
After 2008 and Kerry's presumed defeat, both parties will believe that if their guy gets in to the White House without the popular vote, it automatically dooms them for reelection. So they will both want to prevent themselves from being put in that situation, and prevent the other party from beating them in that situation. Both will be arrogant enough to assume that they will be the ones to profit from this change.
As for a 2008 Republican nominee, how about a successfully reelected George Allen?
As for a 2008 Republican nominee, how about a successfully reelected George Allen?
Honestly, someone like him would've made a macaca-level gaffe sooner or later. He's uncomfortable with minorities, and he'd have had to deal with minority reporters and interviewers in his campaigns. If he hadn't made such a gaffe in 2006, he would have in 2008.
The US presidential candidate selection process is a lot less arbitrary than it seems. There's a reason people who may superficially appear like complete has-beens like McCain can still remain serious presidential candidates.
toto
Banned
The National Popular Vote Bill: 50.4% of the way to go into effect
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc