USAToday has joined the New York Times in highlighting the nightmares involving the electoral college. This piece is more informative and less biased than the previous.
Remember the 36-day drama over Florida's hanging chads and butterfly ballots?
Get ready for a replay.
How it could happen
The scenarios aren't far-fetched:
*For a tie: Every state votes the way it did four years ago, except for two. New Hampshire and West Virginia, which voted for Bush last time, go Democratic this time. Kerry is competitive in both states.
*For a divided result that elects Bush: Every state votes the way it did four years ago, giving Bush an electoral-vote majority of 278. That's a more comfortable edge - a side effect of the redistribution of congressional seats and electoral votes after the 2000 Census - than last time, when Bush got 271 votes, one more than required. But Kerry carries the popular vote, as Al Gore (news - web sites) did, by rolling up big totals in such strongholds as California and New York.
*For a divided result that elects Kerry: Every state votes the way it did four years ago, except for one. Kerry wins Florida, for a majority of 287 electoral votes, or Ohio, for 280. They went Republican in 2000; state polls released Sunday show Kerry and Bush tied in both. But Bush carries the popular vote by scoring oversized margins in his home state of Texas and in the South and Mountain West.
Funky Dung
Comments 2
Hey a tie would be really cool. That'd throw the election to the House (voting as states, however) and that'd give everyone in America a really important civic's lesson.
Can we vote for a tie explicitly???
Cheers
+0
Posted 30 Nov 1999 at 12:00 am ¶The tie scenario is even more fun than it seems. The house votes for the president with each state getting one vote; so Bush would undoubtedly win there. However, the Senate picks the VP, and it is very possible that the dems will retake the senate. This would yield a Bush-Edwards presidency.
Also, would probably necesitate a massive expansion of the secret service.
+0
Posted 04 Sep 2004 at 7:29 pm ¶Post a Comment