Could Kerry Win the Electoral Vote but Lose the Popular Vote?

[liberalpragmatist]

That's what some political scientists are theorizing, according to one of my professors who recently attended a conference of political scientists.

I don't completely buy it - I think turnout will be huge this year and I think that there is going to be energized anti-Bush turnout even in solidly blue states. However, I can sort of see the logic. If Bush improves his margins in solidly red states and some Southern border states - i.e. West Virginia, Arkansas, while piling on huge numbers of votes in the red states in general it might happen IF Kerry's support in blue states stays at Gore's level and he outperforms Bush in swing states.

I'm somewhat skeptical though. The upshot is that, according to the same political scientists, two elections in a row in which the popular-vote winner didn't become president and if it hurt both the Democrats and the Republicans equally, then a Republican congress might be much more ready to pass it.

However, while I would very much like to scrap the EC (and this would be the best scenario for it), I still want Kerry to win the popular vote. Reason being that many downstate races, esp. senate races are in red states and we need to win a good number of them - an extra heavy turnout for * can't be good in Alaska, SC, NC (which *might* be blue), Louisiana, South Dakota, or Kentucky.

[NMDemDist2]

1. poetic justice yes? n/t

[TexasSissy]

8. Yes, it would be. If Kerry wins, I think he'll get both. And I hope he

does. But it WOULD have a kind of symmetry to it, wouldn't it, if * got the popular vote but not the EV?

[phish420]

2. No, he'll get both...nt

[indigobusiness]

3. Wouldn't that be rich?

I've been wondering the same thing.

[cyr330]

4. Who cares?

The Repukes didn't give a shit that they lost the electoral AND the popular vote. . . They'll scream bloody murder if Kerry wins only the electoral vote, but they can get fucking used to it. Tough shit.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Exactly!

"Get over it" comes to mind.

[napi21]

5. Yes, it's possible. I suspect unlikely, but possible.

[starroute]

6. A lot less likely for a Democrat

Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representatives plus its two senators. This means that the low-population states have more electors per person than the high-population states -- and no matter how low their population is, they can't have less than three. Since the low-population states tend to vote Republican, the Republicans have far more of a chance to win in electoral votes while losing in the popular vote.

For example, Wyoming has half a million people and three electoral votes. California has 35 million people and 55 electoral votes. You do the math.

All this wasn't as big a problem when the country was split politically mainly by class or by urban vs. rural. The more it gets divided up by geography, the worse the imbalance is going to be.

[DuaneBidoux]

7. Sure he could. The difference however is that he would govern as if

that had been the case. He would be humble, appoint moderate Republicans to his cabinet, seek to compromise on important issues. I also bet that he would be the first to begin moving toward an effort to eliminate the EC. In short, he would do what is right.

[genius]

9. Kerry's going to get above 80% of the actual vote. The result

the public sees will depend on the rigging.

[elperromagico]

10. I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I like your Kerry pic.

Very nice picture of JK. ;)