I think that Tom DeLay would probably attempt to symbolically exterminate a man in cockroach outfit (wearing a sash that says "Electoral College") were that to happen.

Oh, the excruciating irony! It has a "fearful symmetry". Frankly, I'd love that, but doubt it's going to happen. My personal theory is that Kerry's going to win this in a landslide despite cw and the polls. We'll all be treated to tedious mystified head scratching from pundits the week after the election asking the inevitable self-justifying question of "how could the polls be so wrong?" Notice that they themselves are NEVER wrong - it's always someone else. Wow! I just realized that this reminds me of the current administration modus operandi.

I agree with Mara that it'll be a blowout, but a "flip flop" (for lack of a better word) of 2000 is a distinct possibility. There's no way that the electoral college makes it out alive.

Actually, the same outcome (Bush wins popular vote, Gore wins electoral college) was predicted by quite a few people last time around. Some Republicans apparently had already prepared some "we won, the election was stolen" arguments.

As for the reliability of the polls, there were enormous swings in the last weeks/days before the 2000 election. Gallup, in particular, which actually came pretty close to the final result in its own FINAL poll, had been off by something like 10 % (in Bush's favor) just two or three weeks before the election.

In any case, the whole argument over who won the popular vote is totally misguided. This election, just as the last, is fought based on the electoral college being the deciding factor in the election.

If the rules change, the whole campaign approach will change. Rather than campaign in rural Ohio, the candidates will be seen in the big cities a lot more often. They will focus on turning out their base even more than on convincing swing voters in swing states. (They will still try to persuade swing voters, but not in particular regions.)

So there is really no point in whining about losing the "popular vote" - not for Gore and not for Bush - if the popular vote is not what counts.

And in case it wasn't clear enough from what I wrote: The point is that the popular vote would have been different if the rules had been different.

If the Electoral College did not survive in its current form, that would be fine with me. Every state should do what Colorado is considering and Maine has done: If 50% of your population vote Bush and 50% vote Kerry, then the electoral votes are divided the same way. Awarding them all to a candidate who wins by a handful of votes has always struck me as illogical.

Even if there's another split, the electoral college is here to stay. The Democratic Party cannot afford to spend campaign money in the Texas, California, New York, and Illinois tv markets, and the Republicans don't want to either. Therefore the status quo will hold.

I have to admit, it would have a strange kind of logic to it.

How about this nightmare, there is still a scenario where each candidate grabs 269 EVs and the election goes to the House.

The trouble with Polls lies in the fact that the Voting booth does something to the Voters, making them think they are responsible for their government. Even Exit Polls have shown discrepencies of 8%, as Voters are reluctant to express the rationale of their Vote.

Facts: 1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and it was his carelessness which brought it on; 2) his economic policies have brought on the only recessive Boom in history--with two million Jobs lost; 3) the compassionate Conservative has turned into the Spendthrift Corporate Mouthpiece, at a cost of trillions of Debt before it is straightened out; 4) The Iraq War has turned into a relived Vietnam, with the U.S. supporting an unviable regime.

I estimate Bush will present the worst showing for Republican since Goldwater in 1964. lgl

Here's a confident prediction about that scenario:

Kerry won't perceive such an electoral-college victory as a mandate for a far-left agenda, resulting in four more years of divisive political leadership.

Of course the hysterics on Republicans talk radio, Fox News, and Tom Delay will attempt to portray it this way no matter what Kerry does.

Assuming your scenario comes to pass I wouldn't be surprised if a few bills to amend the constitution and abolish or reform the electoral college get introduced and discussed. However I seriously doubt that such an amendment would ever get ratified. Too many small state legislatures would be against it. Take Wyoming and Alaska for example. What possible reason would those states have for abolishing the electoral college? The formula that awards electors for each senator and congressman gives such states disproportionate influence on the election compared to large states. And the Republican legislatures in both states would be unlikely to give up the sure 3 votes for whoever is the Republican candidate.

I expect that whatever amendment ever got out of Congress would die a long slow death in the state legislatures.

If any result leads to the Electoral College being eliminated (or at least its state by state winner take all form) than it will be a successful election.

I think the way we elect President makes a total joke of the pride we take in "American democracy".

I hesitate to contradict Hasen in his area of expertise, but I think he's got the merits of the two Colorado arguments backwards.

The "legislature" language only made a difference to three justices in 2000-- and the legislature-judiciary difference is *more* persuasive as a matter of caselaw than the legislature-initiative difference.

But the procedural problem with running an election under rules that are set simultaneously with the voting is very serious, and (both my prediction and my view of what ought to happen) likely to invalidate the referendum as applied to this year's election.

Of course, that suit will take a long time to wrap up, which mean that, if the electoal college vote is within plus or minus four, we won't know the outcome of the presidential election for a goog long while. I consider this highly likely.

One cannot help but speculate that the military vote is not such a lock for the Republicans as it has been in the past. Clearly, the Guard and Reserve members are fed up with their long tours and inadequate equipment. Before the military bloggers were cracked down upon, more than once I read a post discretely saying that that some might be surprised at the number of Guard people who will be voting for Kerry. In addition, watching C-Span over the last few weeks, I have been stunned at the number of thinktank panels of ex-military people who are outraged over Iraq. Many, especially those who participated in Gulf War 1, initially supported the "liberation" idea, but are now very fed up with ad hoc "occupation." They have often shared the frustrations of their acquantainces who are still in the military.

I'd say it's safe to say that the CIA and State Dept employees (and their family members, don't forget)will be voting for Kerry. And, we often hear whispers that Wall Street, despite outward murmurings of Republican support, will actually be voting for Kerry, as history has shown that a govt of mixed power is far more conducive to a stable economy. I'd say we're in for some real surprises.

I propose a twist to the question;

Let's say GWB wins cleanly.
Where does that leave the Democrats going forward?
Who will they blame, since they clearly ahve no history or intention of blaming themselves for their electoral failures..

Living in Colorado, I believe that Amendment 36 has very little chance of passing. Two reasons: First, there has been no pro-campaigning as far as I have seen. Uneducat...I mean uninformed voters will be reading about it for the first time when they step into the booth. Second, most papers that I have seen are actively editorializing against it. The conservative paper's argument is that it will take away our political clout during Presidential elections. This wouldn't be a bad argument if we had had any clout prior to this election. Colorado has been largely ignored during Presidential campaigns. I think that the explanation for our newly-found popularity is our very competitive Senate race. The liberal paper's argument is that they don't want to be responsible for Kerry losing 4 electoral votes if he happens to carry the state. They are being timid in the face of a Bush re-election rather than voting for what they believe is right.

I of course find this disheartening. I think that Amendment 36 would be a big step in the right direction toward popular voting. Amending the Constitution to ditch the Electoral College is too difficult, at least right now. So the only option is for states to change the way that they divy up their votes.

Could 2004 be a mirror image of 2000?

It is possible, but the odds against it are long. I don't see a national surge to Kerry leading to a spike in pro-Bush votes in the so-called "red" states. If anything, here in Georgia fervor to get out the GOP vote is less than it was in 2002 -- there are just not that many close races, and that includes the Presidency. If Kerry does well in the battleground states he'll win regardless of how big a majority Bush gets in a state like Georgia, and everyone here knows it.

I think the reverse is true for a late surge to Bush. And I sure hope I'm right. Neither of these guys is worth a repeat of the 2000 fiasco.

How about this nightmare, there is still a scenario where each candidate grabs 269 EVs and the election goes to the House.

Why would that be a nightmare for you? According to the (arcane) rules, Bush would almost certainly be re-elected in that case (even in the unlikely events that the Democrats "take back" the House, there would almost certainly still be more Republican dominated state delegations in the House, and that's what counts according to the weird rules.)

To Eric Berlin: Colorado's initiative is different from what Maine is doing. Maine allocates one electoral vote to the winner of each of Maine's two congressional districts. The remaining two votes go to whoever wins the most votes statewide. Nebraska has the same system as Maine (but five votes total, so three districts and two "at-large" votes). Colorado would allocate its nine votes proportionally, with no regard for what happened in individual congressional districts.

One can certainly give all sorts of twisted justifications for any approach, but the most straightforward one, i.e. a direct election of the President by the national popular vote, is the only one that makes every vote equally important.

If we had an election by direct popular vote, think of what would happen in a close election like 2000. Instead of one Florida, would we have hundreds of precincts all over the country recounting their results ?

There is a reason that the largest countries in the world do not have direct popular vote. Most are parliamentary democracies (such as India). Russia is the only large directly elected Presidential democracy, -- fortunately Russian elections are not likely to be close :-).

I continue to believe that a Presidential Democracy is better for the US than a mere revamp of the electoral college.

FWIW, recent polls seem to show Bush ahead in the national poll, while Kerry is even or marginally ahead in the battleground states. So a split decision could very well happen. What karmic justice it would be if Bush won the popular vote, lost the EV because of Florida.

One can certainly give all sorts of twisted justifications for any approach, but the most straightforward one, i.e. a direct election of the President by the national popular vote, is the only one that makes every vote equally important.

It also turns 2000 into a nightmare, forcing a nationwide recount ala Florida. That 500,000 seems like a significant enough margin but 200 votes here, 200 votes there (there/here = a priecent) and suddenly that Gore lead could evaporate or grow.

Personally, I hope whatever victory is won by Bush or Kerry is a total blowout, because I fear the lawyers that are readying their briefs in the event of a close election. This may be the only thing that frightens me more than four more years of W.

Legitimacy in a democracy is a surprisingly delicate thing -- and if we have lawyers screaming any old thing about elections in Florida or Ohio in order to overturn results they don't like, we may live to rue the results. Lawyers care mostly about winning their case -- not about whether the system can survive their victory. And state supreme courts (where these cases will go) have been becoming more and more results oriented as time goes on.

I worry about a country where one faction or the other will be able to fuel their resentments with the "we wuz robbed".

So please. No more such nightmares, Dan. Otherwise I will dream tonight of Florida 2004, the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Kerry, and Terry McAuliffe and George Soros under the blue state flag of revolution marching on Washington with a rag-tag band gathered from a Move-On meet-up group.

If the electoral college is tied 269-269, Bush is going to win in the house, but how about the vice-president. Imagine a scenario where on Nov 3rd the senate is 50-49 and Louisianna is having a run-off cause Vitter didn't get 50% of the vote.

All the money and effort focused on a LA Senate Race that could decide who will be the next VP

Zathras:

How much of that decreased fervor is due to the Georgia flag issue being off the table once and for all? (Living in a Kerry/bobo enclave in Atlanta --I have no sense of how folks "Outside the Perimeter" are viewing things.)

If Kerry both wins the EV and loses the popular vote, he will:

- change the upper income tax percentages to 29%, 38% and 44%
- double the Superfund, and add 100 sites.
- refer to his fed. judge nominees as "Michael Newdow followers"
- create a Dept. of Holistic Health & Services
- eliminate loopholes for corporate off-shore HQ tax cheats
- kill emissions loophole for SUV's
- make the..

Wait! Promoting such extreme hard left proposals would require a mandate, wouldn't it? I suppose that's a ridiculous premise for a president with such a narrow majority.

I'm curious - would GWB "stand down" as Al Gore did in 2000 after the SCOTUS ruled?

One thing that'll be different this time: the Democrats won't roll over and play dead like they did in Florida four years ago.

Al Gore and company graciously accepted defeat in the interests of not dividing the country. Well, we've seen what that's gotten us.

Every battle for every electoral vote will be (figuratively) to the death. It'll be nasty.

And don't forget that a 269-269 tie where West Virginia going to the GOP might not be a tie at all. One of the Republican WV electors has publicly stated that he might not vote for Bush. http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04284/392803.stm

How plausible is this? Pretty darn plausible. i.e. all states go the way they went last time, except New Hampshire and Nevada

George Will made a pretty good point a couple weeks ago: Success in American elections has always been dependent on a concession from the loser.

Those days are gone. The lawyers have already staked out tents. Neither Bush nor Kerry will stand down.

I'm curious - would GWB "stand down" as Al Gore did in 2000 after the SCOTUS ruled?

Not a chance. Rove and company would keep fighting it for as long as it takes, and by any means necessary. And I do not use those words loosly.

See this article in the Atlanic, which tells the story of how Korl Rave drug out an election for over a year, never giving up and eventually prevailing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

In retrospect, it was a preview of the Florida 2000 post-election strategy.

If GWB wins cleanly, then we suck it up and resign ourselves to four more years of fighting against his radical agendas and blatant crookery--but magnified, as he'll no longer be constrained by re-election concerns.

The only difference is that unlike in 2000, we'd have no basis for questioning his legitimacy--he would unquestionably be /our/ president, like it or not. And really, the illegitimate and criminal means he used to steal the 2000 election are a red-meat issue that unfortunately only really resonate with people already predisposed against him.

However, given the way the numbers are trending, and the demonstrable crookery already under way, I'd say the prospects of a legitimate Bush win are pretty slim.

It also turns 2000 into a nightmare, forcing a nationwide recount ala Florida.

Not at all. Contrary to your unsupported claim, the relatively "small" 500,000 margin of victory was way beyond what any recount could have reversed. EVERY state would have had to come up with, on average, an extra 10,000 vote for the SAME candidate to reverse that margin. Florida alone, which is after all one of the biggest states, never even came close to that number in 2000.

In fact, the unlikelihood of a margin so small that a recount might reverse the result is another argument in favor of a direct nationwide popular vote count. With 100 million voters, give or take a few million, even a 0.1 % margin translates into about 100,000 votes. Has the popular vote ever been that close?

Your post was a perfect example of what I called a twisted justification for anything.

clem:

Just curious. What more could have the Democrats done in Florida? Beat up the rioting GOP fiends in Miami-Dade? Work even harder at excluding military votes?

I do not think the Demos played dead in Florida, and the results they had in Florida (a supreme court win) bears that out. They got beat by a Supreme Court decision which -- in the course of overthrowing the Florida supremes' lousy decision, created a whole lot of lousy law in and of itself.

The Democrats really have to watch themselves, because using lawyers to overthrow a vote looks so very dubious.

Just curious. What more could have the Democrats done in Florida?

The Gore team's focus was on winning in court, first in the Florida Supreme Court then in the US Supreme Court. They wiewed it as primarily a legal matter and acted accordingly.

The Bush Team not only flew in a crack legal team (on the Enron corporate jet, let's not forget) but pulled out all the stops to sway public opinion as well. Rove understood that winning in the court of public opinion was vitally important, perhaps as important, hence the incessant spinning by James Baker.

And as you point out, the Rove team was not above sending out a riot team to disrupt the recount, while Gore was imploring his supporters to keep quiet while the lawyers handle it.

One more thing: this time around we won't let Fox news get away with calling the election. The first "final" number is the most important, and by letting Bush's first cousin call the race on Fox, Gore lost a crucial tactical advantage. Fox no longer has the pretense of impartiality to make such a call.

using lawyers to overthrow a vote looks so very dubious.

Tell that to Perry Hooper http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

And don't forget that the infamous case is called "Bush v. Gore" because Bush was the plaintiff.

In fact, the unlikelihood of a margin so small that a recount might reverse the result is another argument in favor of a direct nationwide popular vote count. With 100 million voters, give or take a few million, even a 0.1 % margin translates into about 100,000 votes. Has the popular vote ever been that close?

In 1880 James Garfield defeated Winfield Scott Hancock 214-155 in the electoral college, but the popular difference was less than 10,000 votes, according to some sources it was less than 2,000.

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/000000e5.htm

If Bush loses the electoral college but wins the popular vote that would not be such a bad thing because it would a least show other nations that Americans are not going to be intimidated by popular opinion overseas.

Both France and Germany have tried to make things more difficult in Iraq because they wanted to see the US defeated.

If Bush at least wins the popular vote that would demonstrate to other nations that the US will not be intimidated. To me that is what much of this election is about. That the US is willing to stand up for itself.

Voting for Bush is showing other nations that the US will not be intimidated.

If a majority of Americans stand by the president then that message will made clear to other nations.

James, thanks for the pointer to the 1880 election - interesting.

Do note, however, that there were only 9.2 million voters back then. Today's much higher number makes it very unlikely that the victory margin would ever fall within recount territory.

But, yes, you are right, in 1880 a recount would have been required if the election had been decided by popular vote.

Uh_Clem, your memory is faulty. All the networks, including Fox, first called Florida for Gore BEFORE all the polling stations closed in the panhandle. Then after a couple of hours the networks realized that Florida was still up in the air and reversed their call. I don't think Fox was the first. Then they changed the call to Bush, again I don't think Fox was the first. Then about 2 am, all the networks changed their call from Bush to toss up and then the real fun began.

Here is the timeline of the election night events in Florida from 2000:

http://www.apbroadcast.com/AP+Broadcast/About+Us/Press+Releases/General/AP+Timeline+of+Election+Events+in+Florida.htm

While Florida was indeed first called for Gore, based on exit polls, that call was just about Florida, but not the Presidency (because it wasn't yet clear that Florida would decide the Presidency).

When Fox News called Florida for Bush at 2:16 am, based in part on faulty vote counts that made Bush's lead look much larger than it was, it also called the Presidency for Bush.

Can we go back to terrorism for a second?
Yesterday President Bush gave a "major policy speach" on terrorism. Pandagon did a rundown:

Did a quick term count in yesterday's "major" speech on terrorism. The results, amazingly, are even more ridiculous than I expected:
• Frequency of John Kerry (with the terms "Senator", "Senator Kerry", or "my opponent"): 41
• Frequency of "Saddam Hussein": 4
• Frequency of "Al Qaeda": 1
• Frequency of "Osama bin-Laden" or "bin-Laden": 0

"One thing that'll be different this time: the Democrats won't roll over and play dead like they did in Florida four years ago.

Al Gore and company graciously accepted defeat in the interests of not dividing the country. Well, we've seen what that's gotten us."

oh, yes... it was so gracious to go into one state and select two highly democratic counties (and only those counties) in order to do a selective recount in those counties where you know there are more democrats... and the people who will ultimately decide what dimples and chads are valid are the democrats who are in charge of the county... and there aren't even the same standards in each oth those counties for which dimples and chads will count...

oh, yes... that was very classy. very #@!%ing classy.

as if gwb, if he had wanted to be as "classy", couldn't have gone into several states that gore barely won and done the same thing (and he had some places where it would have been just as "approriate" to do that as it was for gore to do what he did.

and it sure is classy to start alleging fraud and to use race-baiting BEFORE this election even started...

yes, i am so ashamed of my party.

by the way, you who think that kerry could possibly win in a landslide... thank you... i've needed a good solid belly-laugh today.

you're right, kerry, after supposedly "winning" all three debates, has got gwb right where he wants him: either tied or behind with lower favorability ratings than bush. that sure is evidence of a winning strategy in action. woo-hooooooo!

if you want to know why kerry can't win,
go here:
images.radcity.net/5145/792261.mp3

(or click on my url)

oh yes, fox news stole the election for bush...

BECAUSE ALL OF THE OTHER NEWS NETWORKS LOVE FOX AND ALWAYS FOLLOW FOX'S LEAD!!!

gimme a break...

one reason bush's numbers tanked right at the end was the breaking story about his DUI.

who broke that story? FOX news... i guess they were trying to rig the election for bush when they did that.

>oh, yes... it was so gracious to go into one state and select two highly democratic counties (and only those counties) in order to do a selective recount in those counties where you know there are more democrats...
Um, not meaning to disparage you brilliant legal mind, but.... that's the frigging law in Florida. You don't get to do a statewide recount at that stage, you can only request recounts in specific counties. Look it up....

"You don't get to do a statewide recount at that stage, you can only request recounts in specific counties. Look it up...."

so, i guess you wouldn't have minded if bush asked for a recount in specific republican counties... one to offset each county gore picked?

gimme a break.

and, since we're staying focused on the legal process here... i guess that's how it all got worked out isn't it?

and, while we're at it... why don't you go look up what happened when non-partisan groups actually went in after the election and DID recount the whole state. i'm sure you have a cute answer for that as well...

...probably something like a change of topic to the issue of a butterfly-ballot and pat buchanan, etc... and you'll conveniently leave out the fact that that happened in a democratic county as well, and the person who created the ballot was a democrat.

If you are a Colorado voter, Amendment 36 is insane. CO currently has 9 electoral votes, making it a prize worth winning. If the Amendment passes, it will effectively have only 1 electoral vote, as almost every election will be decided 5-4 one way or the other. If people there feel ignored now, just wait until the state has less clout than Montana or the District of Columbia.

i agree about the colorado amendment.

i also am unsure of how it could happen.

bush is usually leading in the polls there. what are the odds that, out of a majority of voters for bush (if that happens), some of those bush voters will also vote for something that causes their vote for bush to be diluted?

am i missing something with that?

ergf: If we had an election by direct popular vote, think of what would happen in a close election like 2000. Instead of one Florida, would we have hundreds of precincts all over the country recounting their results ?

How about passing a law that says that after a close election, you can't do a recount everywhere, just random audits. If those audits turn up no significant irregularities, then that's it, game over.

Because this current situation where entire states get completely ignored by both sides is just ridiculous. That's not how a democracy is supposed to work.

"Would the Electoral College survive ...?"

Well, of course it would. This slavery-based institution triumphed in 2000, will survive as long as the Republic. This time, anything short of a Bush landslide will cause the Colorado proportional-allocation amendment to spread like wildfire. That measure, which divides the state's votes according to popular vote, looks good to pass. These measures, as they spread to other states, will finally render the Electoral College moot, though we'll still always have the ritual of sending electors to Washington to vote.

Cheers, JW

"Only after several deferments & the last deferment request was denied."

To Activist Moderate, the moron who wrote the above tripe.

You're confusing the cowardly Dick Cheney's record with Kerry's. Official Navy records contradict your wild baseless accusation.

Even the Bush campaign concedes Kerry's bravery in time of war and glowing record. But gee, some ass monkey on a message board must have some secret information that even they are not aware of! Five deferments...LOL! Get on that phone and alert Rove because the shrub can be re-elected today with your tip...too bad it's pure bullshit.

Come back to the "reality based community" you brainwashed cultists. Oh I'm going to have a great time rubbing the salt in the wounds when Kerry wins...for 4 years I'll rub it in.

"Even if there's another split, the electoral college is here to stay. The Democratic Party cannot afford to spend campaign money in the Texas, California, New York, and Illinois tv markets, and the Republicans don't want to either. Therefore the status quo will hold."

Uh excuse me? Try pulling up the cash raised by the DNC, Kerry campaign, and liberal 527s...they raised MORE than the RNC, Bush campaign, and conservative 527s. Now, remember that Bush is running unopposed while the dems had a primary in which $100 mil was raised among the candidates. Liberal money dwarfed GOP money this election.

"Kerry won't perceive such an electoral-college victory as a mandate for a far-left agenda, resulting in four more years of divisive political leadership. "

Oh please. This is why you libs and cons are growing far slower than your independent counterparts...you're all a bunch of mindless partyline lemmings who think everything is the other side's fault while your own shit don't stink.

I swear it takes a centrist to call bullshit in politics anymore. Take a good look at the neocon agenda...the LIBERAL agenda of nation building and utopia pipedreams brought about by imperialist hegemony. Wilson would have fit right in with the Bush admnistration and today's dominant GOP platform.

This is why I laugh everytime I hear the Bush campaign call Kerry a liberal. The real liberal is that monkey who keeps busting the budget and entertaining thoughts of nation building the world in his image while ignoring domestic affairs at home. Not to mention walking all over the Bill of Rights with this outrageous Patriot Act.

Bush is so far left of Kerry he makes Kucinich look like Pat Buchanan.

All your arguments against throwing out the electoral college has been debunked. Read and be educated: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108420/

There is a reason for the electrol college. It exists so the big states can not overwhelm the small states. Fancy Wyoming (pop. 1/3 of San Jose) voting away any small advantage it has. Find me 3/4 of the states willing to be ignored by the big five or six. Aint gonna happen folks. And be careful what you wish for California (more than 10% of the population) almost always goes demo, but there are 40%+ republicians in the state. Go split vote in CA and it helps GOP big time. Want that?
The system is as it for a reason, and has worked for 200 years. Leave it alone, field a good candidate and you will get your turn.

Just to throw a bit of defense for the Electoral College: one reason to give smaller, generally rural states a bit more leverage is that by definition their polling stations are far, far further apart than urban areas. You cant drive a bus through Oklahoma picking up voters like you can through NYC or St Louis. Just a thought.

The end of the electoral college would not be a bad thing. The disproportionate advantage it gives to small rural states with no population like N. Dakota or Montana by giving them 2 EVs automatically in spite of the fact noone lives there gives the Elwctoral College a natural GOP bias.

Gee, "angry"... guess what? If Bush had requested recounts in Republican counties, I wouldn't have jumped up and down and screamed. You know why? Because throughout the history of the Republic, recounts are what people do when the vote is close. Recounts aren't blatant attempts to cheat and steal an election - not when Repubs do 'em, and not when Democrats do 'em. Recounts are attempts to make sure you are getting it right.
Because in this country we have a quaint, old-fashioned concept called democracy. See, the idea is simple: once a year of so, everybody troops out and votes. And the winners run the show until the next vote, while respecting the rights of all citizens (read the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers sometime). It's a much better system than totalitarianism or communism.

For the first time in a long time, electoral-vote.com shows Kerry beating Bush. Not only that, but it appears Kerry has more "safe" electoral votes than Bush. Barring an October surprise, Kerry is significantly undervalued on TradeSports. Most of the statistical arguments I've seen, strongly favor Kerry. Gallup be damned. If you want to make a killing buy a shit load of Kerry stocks while they are cheap. Nothing better than making money off of wingers crazyiness.

" Go split vote in CA and it helps GOP big time. Want that? The system is as it for a reason, and has worked for 200 years. Leave it alone, field a good candidate and you will get your turn."

Oh, I see. Oppose election reforms if it appears to help the other party -- proper execution of the democratic process be damned. Such is the typical cynicism displayed by libs and cons who care more about gaming the system to their benefit than the broader representation of the American people's will. You brainless partisan lemmings can't think beyond your own selfish ideologies for even a moment.

As for it working 200 years -- yeah, last election was just wonderful and this one's looking to be even better. Slavery was a pretty good system up until the mid-19th century...you can't beat free labor for boosting profits. I wonder why we scrapped that system?

Lastly, your arguments against the electoral college were refuted very eloquently by Slate's Timothy Noah. See the link I posted and the references within to previous articles on the subject.

I'm hoping for a Kerry win on the electoral college and Bush popular vote so that both parties get burned. You have to light a fire under partisan asses in order to ever get them to cooperate for the good of the country.

I tend to think that whenever the Electoral College is being complained about, it's doing its job. I dont want to live in a country where LA, Chicago, and NYC can get together and dictate the fate of the rest of the country that they are clueless about, and honestly dont want to know anything about.

When I hope, I hope big: I'm hoping for a Democratic sweep.

What I more soberly wish for is a Kerry-Edwards victory big enough to overcome GOP vote-skanking, and a Democratic majority in House or Senate.

It's fun to fantasize, isn't it? Folk, the electoral college is here to stay. No one—not even the most populist or opposed-to-the-established-order members of the House—introduced legislation to abolish it. Each representative knows that it may work in his or her party's favor next time around. If they didn't abolish after the 2000 election, it's here to stay.

And Colorado won't change its method of allocating votes. Why reduce your own power on the national scene?

Believe.

> I propose a twist to the question;
>
> Let's say GWB wins cleanly....
>
> Posted by Bithead at October 19, 2004 03:32 PM

Since Bush has already smeared a decorated war vet, I guess that your definition of "clean" is pretty flexible.

As for Chris's claim that Fox News broke the story of Bush's DUI in 2000 - Salon calls that history rewriting:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/23/fox_dui/

And more history rewriting from angry: as if gwb, if he had wanted to be as "classy", couldn't have gone into several states that gore barely won and done the same thing

Well, he did - until Florida was decided and the prepared challenges in New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin and Iowa became unnecessary. See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/14/votes.elsewhere/

In fact, as this article points out, there was some recounting in New Mexico.

As for selecting which counties in Florida to do a recount in - it seems pretty clear that in case Gore had been successful to press for a recount in those "Democratic" counties, Bush would have insisted on a recount in Republican counties as well. Most likely a statewide recount would have been conducted in the end. And that would have given Gore the majority as was discovered a year later by the news organizations who counted ALL the votes again.

The fact is that Gore did indeed receive more votes in Florida than Bush did. It was Bush who "won" the 2000 election using lawyers and "activist" judges.

LOL!

Since Bush has already smeared a decorated war vet

Perhaps you'd better come up with a direct quote here, goethean.

AM asked a question upthread about the flag issue in Georgia. For people living elsewhere this involved the question of changing Georgia's state flag to remove the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy.

Even outside the Perimeter (the interstate surrounding the city of Atlanta) the flag issue had been declining in its relative importance for some time. This was because so many people have moved to Georgia in the last ten years from states where reverence for the Confederacy is largely absent: Hispanics, transients, Yankees like me.

The issue was big in 2002 because so many of the people who do feel passionately about the flag are registered Democrats from rural Georgia, people who had sometimes supported Republican Presidential candidates but who had mostly voted for Democrats in state races. Roy Barnes, the last governor, forced a change in the flag through the legislature and die-hard pro-Stars and Bars activists vowed revenge. They got it in 2002 as many rural counties that had backed Zell Miller and Barnes in the past went for Sonny Perdue. But that's all they got; by mid-2003, everyone but the hard core flaggers was so sick of the issue they would do just about anything to make it go away. Perdue made the requisite gesture to the flaggers after his inauguration by proposing a referendum on keeping the Stars and Bars, but ultimately went along with the legislators who only wanted a settlement.

The flag issue is dead now. It isn't coming back.

Didn't Georgia end up with a non standard sized flag?

The "crazy aunt in the attic" that doesn't get mentioned too often is, to me, a Kerry squeaker win, followed by indecision and dithering in foreign affairs. Kerry would have no mandate, save for the fact he wasn't Bush. Indecision, dithering and/or premature withdrawal from Iraq would create a perceived victory in the minds of the jihadis, which would make a devastating attack on our homeland much more likely. If Kerry responded true to his McGovernite, NE liberal roots, meaning ineffectual as in Carter's Iranian fiasco and desert disaster - complete with a televised lecture that it is all our fault, there would be tens of millions of Americans ready to tar and feather an effete, ineffective failure and run him out of office on a rail. We might wind up being stuck with a truly empty suit, and trial lawyer to boot, President. Far fetched, you say? Perhaps, but not at all outside the margin of rationality. Kerry does not have the cojones to lead this country ... period!

Hey Thomson,

Your boy Bush just got endorsed by the 2nd pillar of the Axis of Evil and #1 enemy of the state of Israel...Iran!

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/187838-8290-010.html

Here's the juicy bits:

----------------------

TEHRAN, Iran -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's "axis of evil" label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions for the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked whether Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said in response. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken, including looking to the U.N. Security Council."

--------------------

Yes, if it's the pressure of human rights issues by dems they fear, then they have nothing to worry about with Bush. He doesn't give a damn about Americans' rights, so he sure doesn't care what some arabs are doing elsewhere. Unless of course he needs an excuse to rationalize an invasion!

BUSH/CHENEY 2004 -- The Ayatollah's Choice!

Next up...Kim Sung Il endorses Bush?

Let's also not forget that Al Qaeda itself endorsed Bush back in March after the Spain bombings. Why? As the terrorist group Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, the Spain cell of Al Qaeda said:

-------------
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

The statement said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

--------------------

You can't blame them really. Bush is their #1 recruiter and provided 130,000 American targets delivered right to their doorstep.

That "if" in my statement is crucial, and it's what turns it into a deliberate absurdity. Nothing I could do in any voting booth "would crash [their] Common Dreams, [the goddamned] rat-fuck commies".

They apparently figure Bush will win and don't want him ticked when he does. Calculated ass kissing on Iran's part, combined wih a serious misunderstanding of the man.

Independent Centrist: So I guess we should keep Bush in order to appease Iran and the terrorists... ;-)

They apparently figure Bush will win and don't want him ticked when he does.

That makes sense. Clearly, Bush is far more likely to get ticked off if Iran does not support him than if they go ahead with the minor matter of enriching Uranium and building a nuke.

Calculated ass kissing on Iran's part, combined wih a serious misunderstanding of the man.

Particularly surprising considering that Khamenei has a common acquintance with Bush. They both get their marching orders from God.

Bring back State Legislature election of Senators! Many people have forgotten that there is a reason that the Founders went to so many lengths to have chack and balances. And the point of many of them was to discourage democracy. Remember, we have a representative republic - for a damn good reason. As usual, Dan, I find your blog to hover constantly on the hysterical - unhistorical side. I simply don't believe you are a libertarian-to-Republican. I think you are more of a statist as described by the wonderful dynamist.

Buehner's Corollary to Godwin's Law: As a thread involving G.W. Bush grows longer, the probability of Florida being invoked approaches one. Once the Florida Event Threshold has been reached, the probability of Bush being compared (unfavorably) to Hitler becomes equal to one.

How can you even ask? If the Dems win, it's totally legitimate, no matter what. If the Republicans win, the opposite.

Mark, the only campaign that actually dragged Hitler into this was the Bush campaign.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033/

Case study: Albert 'digital brownshirts' Gore. He should know, he invented the medium.

Mark: Good point, let's not vote for Gore then.

Uh Clem's corollary to Buehner's Corollary to Godwin's Law: As a thread involving Al Gore grows longer, the probability of some misinformed twit rehashing the long discredited "Al Core claimed to have invented the internet" meme approaches one.

The Democrats are also registering new voters at record levels. However, gay marriage is on the ballot for several states. This will be the biggest turnout for an election in history. Whatever happens, Ralph Nader will run again in 2008.

Not at all. Contrary to your unsupported claim, the relatively "small" 500,000 margin of victory was way beyond what any recount could have reversed.

1/2 of 1% margin isn't enough to clamor for a recount even with the fact that the country still has machines in use to capture votes that have an error rate over 4 times the margin of victory? Even when this is the threshold set by various states now for recounts?

Florida's 2000 election debacle would not have been able to overturn a 30k victory by a statewide candidate, but that suggests to me simply that there wasn't a widescale malfunctioning of the process. I don't think that means that a Floridian statewide candidate who loses by more than say 1,000 votes has no right based on 2000 to clamor for a recount. The fact that we didn't see that many votes changed is a good sign, not an indication that the Electoral College elimination Amendment should set an extraordinarily low and unfair threshold for demanding a nationwide recount of votes cast.

This conversation has swayed me somewhat against the EC. I still prefer it- I prefer the concept that the states elect the president, but only as part of a greater scheme in which our government changes significantly from the current way "things work"... the idea that we have 50 states and not simply 50 arbitrarily decided "districts" where people live.

Ummm. I musta had the wrong quote in my clipboard when I posted yesterday, sorry. It's what I get for working mutltiple threads at once.

That makes sense. Clearly, Bush is far more likely to get ticked off if Iran does not support him than if they go ahead with the minor matter of enriching Uranium and building a nuke.

That's just it; they likely figure he;ll be less prone to action against them, given their public statements of support.

RE: Iran endorsing Bush.

Of course it's just a ruse.

They really want Kerry. But coming out in support of Kerry would hurt him at the polls (who wants to be endorsed by a member of the axis-of-evil?), so they're endorsing Bush in the hopes that people will vote against Bush because of the endorsement.

Plainly transparent. A child could see through it.

But the Iranians know that and they're smarter than you might think. Anticipating the fact that we'll see through their ruse immediately, they've attempted a double-reverse and actually *do* want Bush - they expect us to interpret an endorsement of either candidate as an endorsement of the other and also expect us to vote against whomever they endorse. So obviously they really prefer Bush.

But we're far too smart for them again. We see through this ruse as well and correctly see that an endorsement of Bush is actually an endorsement of Kerry which is in turn an endorsement of Bush that implies that they really want Kerry.

But that's only what they want us to believe.

So naturally we should assume the opposite.

Let us not fall victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line.". Hahahahahah.

Let us not fall victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia",

Bush clearly didn't follow that advice ..

On the other hand

"My name is Dubya. You tried to kill my father. Prepare to Die .. "

What happens if a president concedes (as in this case) and in the end the votes turn out that he wins the electoral college.. Does the person who conceded take the presidential spot.. or the "winner" since the other person already conceded.. sorry a question that is nagging me.. hope it can be answered.. and where would I find the answer to that..