Reverse of 2000 Election?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Christopher Green, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Mighty Forum~~~

    I have just noticed that, even though Kerry is behind in the popular vote, to some small degree (factoring in the MoE), Bush is apparently behind in the electoral race. As we learned in 2000, that is the only one that matters. See this site.

    Interestingly enough, if Kerry wins this way, it would be a reversal of 2000.

    Would that resolve the bitterness ("atone") that many Democratic voters feel for Bush "stealing" the election in 2000?

    Would that change the view of Hillary Clinton, who said in 2000 that the electoral college should be abandoned (along with many other candidates)?

    Would that change the liberal attitude that some Supreme Court justices use to interpret the constitution?

    It seems to me that, if Kerry wins the electoral vote, all of the sudden the "faithful interpretation of the Constitution" would become more important to leftist policymakers.

    What do you think?

  2. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Yes, of course, but the Electoral College should shouldn't be jettisoned regardless of whose ox is gored. The Electoral College was a compromise of the Constitutional Convention in 1787; it balanced the powers between the big and small states, in much the same way that the composition of our Congress protects the rights of the large states while also giving smaller states certain enhanced representation so their rights are not completely overrun.

    Our Senate is set up one-state-one-vote--smaller states have increased representation; the House on the other hand is proportional representation per population--there the big states wield their power. The Electoral College is set up in the same identical manner: each state gets one elector for each member of Congress, 535 in all (435 HR members + 100 Sen members).

    Smaller states therefore have slightly more electoral power, but this makes perfect sense in light of federalism--we are not just one nation with 50 subdivisions, we are 50 states united around one central government, and each state has its own powers within its own realm. That's our form of government, and the Electoral College represents it perfectly. If one wishes to go to a direct popular election of the President, they might as well promote a European-style central government and take away the states' rights entirely.

    Also remember that a direct popular form of election would incentive the candidates to go almost exclusively to those huge centers of population, ignoring the Heartland. Campaigns would primarily consist of candidates flying from California to New York to Florida to Texas, with the occasional stop in a rust belt population center. Lastly, remember that both Bush and Gore campaigned strategically not for the popular vote but for the electoral vote. Had they both been campaigning for the popular vote, both would have campaigned differently, with the results potentially the same.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2004
  3. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Just an addition.

    It looks as if Bush is slightly in the lead in Florida and PA. That throws off the brief premise of my thread.


Share This Page