Electoral College Vote; Interesting Topic

[Peach]

With SIX on the way? Any cite for that assertion? Turnout for the primaries has been low; and the fight has been nasty. TWO GOP contenders yelling that OTHER GOP contenders are not Christians. Unusual.

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

The Republicans will easily make six pickups.

Right now, the Democrats have two vacancies that the GOP will pick up- North Dakota and Nebraska.

Six other states have weak Democratic incumbants most of whom came in on the 2006 wave. Two of them- Virginia and Wisconsin - have Senators who are retiring. Florida, Michigan, Montana, and Missouri have incumbants who are considered toss ups.

There are three more vacancies that are considered safe Dem states, but that could change when candidates are chosen- Hawaii, Connicutt and New Mexico.

The GOP only has two seats that are at any risk. Nevada, where John Ensign Resigned, and Masschusetts, where they only elected Scott Brown to stop ObamaCare.

So worse case scenario for the GOP- They stay where they are at. The lose the two vulnerables and pick up the two easy vacancies. Best case, they lose none of the vulnerables, pick up all six of the toss ups and the two sure things, and maybe pick off one of the Lean Dems. That would be a gain of nine seats.

I think six is a safe, Conservative number based on history. Even in cases where incumbants have been retained (Reagan, Clinton) votes have split the difference and increased the oppossitions margin in the Senate.

Perhaps; if the bloodletting continues though, many Republicans may stay home.

 

[candycorn]

You think the Republicans won't delay that for a month? Come on. You don't think they'll find ways to grind the chamber to a halt until their new members are seated?

You really think these outgoing Senators are going to go to the mat for Joe Biden? Really? Hell, half of them are urging Obama to dump his ass now.

Too high profile; too politically damaging to do that. The GOP didn't delay the Senate until Brown from MA was seated. His seating would have been able to prevent the cloture motion.

This would be obstructionist beyond belief so they wouldn't do that. Half of the Democratic senators are urging Obama to dump Biden?

Gotta hand it to you. You're Always good for a laugh.

The House must go into session IMMEDIATELY, and pick from the top three. The deadline Bush used to win the lawsuit in 2000 and become President applies. The House would most probably RACE to pick the Republican candidate. They could not delay by filing lawsuits this time around.

Yeah, there won't be any delay. The Electoral College votes 6 weeks after election day. If that doesn't settle the Presidency, the House goes into session immediately. Article I, Section III allows the President to convene Congress for extraordinary circumstances.

 

[mvymvy]

With National Popular Vote, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

With National Popular Vote a candidate would always get the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win, without the House of Representatives needing to vote, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes.

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. 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 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: 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 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

 

[Peach]

With SIX on the way? Any cite for that assertion? Turnout for the primaries has been low; and the fight has been nasty. TWO GOP contenders yelling that OTHER GOP contenders are not Christians. Unusual.

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

The Republicans will easily make six pickups.

Right now, the Democrats have two vacancies that the GOP will pick up- North Dakota and Nebraska.

Six other states have weak Democratic incumbants most of whom came in on the 2006 wave. Two of them- Virginia and Wisconsin - have Senators who are retiring. Florida, Michigan, Montana, and Missouri have incumbants who are considered toss ups.

There are three more vacancies that are considered safe Dem states, but that could change when candidates are chosen- Hawaii, Connicutt and New Mexico.

The GOP only has two seats that are at any risk. Nevada, where John Ensign Resigned, and Masschusetts, where they only elected Scott Brown to stop ObamaCare.

So worse case scenario for the GOP- They stay where they are at. The lose the two vulnerables and pick up the two easy vacancies. Best case, they lose none of the vulnerables, pick up all six of the toss ups and the two sure things, and maybe pick off one of the Lean Dems. That would be a gain of nine seats.

I think six is a safe, Conservative number based on history. Even in cases where incumbants have been retained (Reagan, Clinton) votes have split the difference and increased the oppossitions margin in the Senate.

In Florida the Republicans will probably run Mack or LeMieux against Nelson. Nelson is rather bland, Mack has name power; thus, I agree, a toss up here if Mack is nominated. LeMieux still isn't well known.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would love to see, if the economy picks up and Obama is re-elected, a solid centrist Senate kicking the conservative House around on deal-making with the President.

We are not a one-party natiion, and we never should be a one-party nation.

We do best when we govern from the middle.

 

[Peach]

I would love to see, if the economy picks up and Obama is re-elected, a solid centrist Senate kicking the conservative House around on deal-making with the President.

We are not a one-party natiion, and we never should be a one-party nation.

We do best when we govern from the middle.

I agree.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah......it used to be that Congress would compromise with each other for the betterment of this country.

However..........after the "us vs. them" mentality of the last admin, we're severely divided, because of all the rhetoric.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree. The down-right meanness of both sides, spurred in the beginning by the impeachment fury of 1998, has injured the America cultural and political fabric.

 

[Peach]

I agree. The down-right meanness of both sides, spurred in the beginning by the impeachment fury of 1998, has injured the America cultural and political fabric.

Once again, AGREE.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno........it used to be that congress critters would leave work, and then go hang out together at the bar, golfing or some other form of off time recreation.

Too bad they don't do that anymore because they want to show solidarity with their party.

 

[JoeB131]

In Florida the Republicans will probably run Mack or LeMieux against Nelson. Nelson is rather bland, Mack has name power; thus, I agree, a toss up here if Mack is nominated. LeMieux still isn't well known.

Wasn't Mack a senator before?

 

[JoeB131]

I agree. The down-right meanness of both sides, spurred in the beginning by the impeachment fury of 1998, has injured the America cultural and political fabric.

I think it goes a lot earlier than that. I'd start at Watergate.

 

[Peach]

In Florida the Republicans will probably run Mack or LeMieux against Nelson. Nelson is rather bland, Mack has name power; thus, I agree, a toss up here if Mack is nominated. LeMieux still isn't well known.

Wasn't Mack a senator before?

That was his father; he has been in the US House and was an "events" coordinator for HOOTERS.

 

[candycorn]

With National Popular Vote, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

With National Popular Vote a candidate would always get the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win, without the House of Representatives needing to vote, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes.

Not the case at all. A heavy majority in the big states would allow the President to win.

National Popular vote is a good idea but only if you ADD that to the electoral college. Your idea consolidates too much power into the large states and large cities.

 

[JoeB131]

In Florida the Republicans will probably run Mack or LeMieux against Nelson. Nelson is rather bland, Mack has name power; thus, I agree, a toss up here if Mack is nominated. LeMieux still isn't well known.

Wasn't Mack a senator before?

That was his father; he has been in the US House and was an "events" coordinator for HOOTERS.

Hooters? Well, he's got my vote.

Oh, damn, don't live in that state.

 

[mvymvy]

With National Popular Vote, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

With National Popular Vote a candidate would always get the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win, without the House of Representatives needing to vote, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes.

Not the case at all. A heavy majority in the big states would allow the President to win.

National Popular vote is a good idea but only if you ADD that to the electoral college. Your idea consolidates too much power into the large states and large cities.

What I said is correct. When National Popular Vote is in effect, the candidate with the most popular votes in the entire country would be guaranteed the 270 electoral vote margin needed to become President, period.

Now just a plurality of votes in just the 11 biggest states could elect a President with only 26% of the nation's votes.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

National Popular Vote preserves and uses the Electoral College. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

 

[candycorn]

With National Popular Vote, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

With National Popular Vote a candidate would always get the necessary 270 electoral college votes to win, without the House of Representatives needing to vote, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes.

Not the case at all. A heavy majority in the big states would allow the President to win.

National Popular vote is a good idea but only if you ADD that to the electoral college. Your idea consolidates too much power into the large states and large cities.

What I said is correct. When National Popular Vote is in effect, the candidate with the most popular votes in the entire country would be guaranteed the 270 electoral vote margin needed to become President, period.

Now just a plurality of votes in just the 11 biggest states could elect a President with only 26% of the nation's votes.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

National Popular Vote preserves and uses the Electoral College. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

So, Texas with it's 38 votes would be awarded porportionately to the popular vote in Texas? Obama may get 19 and GOP-X would get 19?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas? Close to 24 to 14.

 

[Avatar4321]

Doesnt happen very often. But we live in an unprecedented time.