If Obama were to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, take it to congress

[Politics_Guy25]

Chuck Todd was just on MSNBC and said Obama could take the GE popular vote against Mccain by as many as 4 MILLION votes but somehow lose the electoral college 274-264.

If Obama had a 51.5-48.5 PV win against Mccain, say, but an electoral college loss, take it to congress and use our house and senate majorities which we will have a huge majority in to install him as president, which is constiutionally the house and senate's perogative. Democrats control a majority of the 50 state house delegations so can do this.

Republicans played hardball in 2000. We should in 2008 if neccessary.

[stray cat]

1. If it is legal and it comes down to that - hell yes! Welcome to DU

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Technically the one who gets the electoral college wins

it would be the THIRD time a President did not win the popular vote though

The first his fraudelency the second George W Bush.... and now this is even floated, This is how they intend to steal the election

Just an FYI

[Politics_Guy25]

3. Actually, technically

Speaker Pelosi and Majorty Leader Reid and our house/senate delegations gets to decide who the president is. During the Florida 2000 mess, I learned the minutie. One cannot be president unless the House of Represenatatives certifies the results of the electoral college:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Correct, but if we are gonna talk minutiae do tell me

what Senator will challenge the Electoral College. We needed that to happen in 2000

[WeDidIt]

17. IF challenged, a majority must agree

we didn't ahve that majority in 2000.

That's why it wasn't challenged.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. In 2004 Boxer challenged....

just saying

And reality check if you think a US Senate and House will decertify the election I have a real bridge to sell you. That is bad news on all kinds of levels

In my view we need to get rid of the Electoral College

[Politics_Guy25]

24. A PV win would have to be combined with a case alleging fraud

I think if Obama were to win the PV by 3-4 million, that alone wouldn't be enough. If he could then make a case, however, that he only lost because of fraud in OH/FL, etc., then we could decertify the results of OH/FL in the house and install him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I hope you are ready for the COLD civil war to go hot

there are days....

Chuck Todd raised that possibility... but for the sake of the COUNTRY we need a solid victory with both the POPULAR and ELECTORAL vote

But he just told you, at least I expect this to be the case, how they intend to steal it.

[Ravy]

28. Actually, fraud doesn't need a PV to back it up.

Fraud alone could be cause for the decertification and the House voting. The PV never enters into it.

[Politics_Guy25]

18. Joe Biden maybe?

Someone from a solidly blue state who wouldn't jeporadize their re-election chances by doing this.

[dems_rightnow]

23. There is literally no chance

that the House and Senate would refuse to certify a valid election.... period. And that's the way it should be.

[WeDidIt]

15. Somebody must gain a MAJORITY of electoral college votes

IF the House of Representatives does not seat the electors as presented by one or more states, nobody has won in the electoral college.

It then goes to the House where the president is chosen by a majority of State Delegations. Yes, state delegations, not representatives. Currently, the Dems hold 28 state delegations in the House.

The Veep is chosen by a majority in the Senate.

Nope, McCain has a higher standard this year, just like Gore had a higher standard for a win in 2000.

[dubeskin]

4. Yes, but then the HILbillies

would get all pissed and start shouting like "Well, Hillary won in the popular vote, but Obama still stole the nomination from her!!!"

But she doesn't matter anymore. What are the circumstances that it could be taken to Congress? As much as I would love to see President Obama in the White House, I fear that this could set a terrible and destructive precedent in the event that the Democrats decide to do that. There would be nothing to stop the Republicans from doing that again.

[Politics_Guy25]

6. No more a destructive precedent than SCOTUS 2000:)

I'll look into just exactly what powers the House of Representatives has. I know that it can chose not to certify Mccain as president though.

[Ravy]

26. That can't be used as precedent. Says so right on the label. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Alas, it has

[dana_b]

14. yes but that's the Dem primary, not the GE

and the Dem Primary has nothing to do with Congress.

Wouldn't McCain take it to the Supreme Court ust like they did in 2000 even if Congress tried to instate Obama?

[PseudoIntellect]

5. Since popular vote is a more valid proposition in the GE than in primaries,

I would support this.

All votes are official, and there's no arguing over which votes count, uncontested, contested, primaries, caucuses, the apples-and-oranges effect of adding primaries and caucuses, etc.

Has nothing to do with the rules, but it's a MUCH stronger argument in the GE.

[Politics_Guy25]

7. Chuck Todd mentioned this

Said there'd be massive protests if Obama won the PV by 4 million but lost the electoral college.

[MattP]

8. I think you have to be consistent.

We elect by electoral college, If Kerry had taken Ohio in 2004 would you have complained because Kerry would have won?

[Politics_Guy25]

11. That's true-maybe it's a bit too "nuclear"

But it's still something we ought to think about if neccessary down the line.

[Ravy]

9. There *IS* no popular vote in the GE.

Any less than there is in the primary.

[sunonmars]

10. what was that about changing the rules mid game you been throwing at Hillary?

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Personally, as a member of civilization, I like rules and regulations

Ones that suck should be changed, but ones that are in place should be respected.

This malleable bullshit is what gave us the Michigan/Florida crap, lest we forget.

The electoral college is archaic, but it's the law. If you don't like it, change it. The problem here is that it's very much embedded in the Constitution, and I don't like the concept of tampering with the Constitution. For one thing, I don't think we'd EVER get as good a deal on religion as the framers gave us.

[Youphemism]

22. I totally agree.

The framers of the constitution were not being lobbied by Dupont, Haliburton, Enron, et al.

Without the electoral college, the candidates would campaign in maybe 5-10 major cities, promising how their lives could be made better by deregulating the sludge and waste they dump on rural areas with few voters. (I refer to this as "The New Jersey Principle.")

The founding fathers were pretty smart. The electoral college can be frustrating, but it serves an important purpose.

And yes, especially after this primary, people should loathe the thought of playing with the rules during the election process just because they think the outcome wasn't fair.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. And the exact opposite could happen.

Remember, days before the 2000 election, Gore was trailing in most polls, but leading the electoral college (since many felt Florida was breaking his way at the last minute). This question was raised then, as people suggested Gore would lose the popular vote and win the electoral college. The Gore response was always that the electoral college counted, the popular vote did not. And he stuck by that, as they never made a case to be selected as president based on the popular vote, rather they staked their claims on Florida and the results there.

It's entirely possible the reverse happens and McCain wins the popular vote, while Obama wins the electoral college. If that happens, would we concede McCain should be president? No. If Obama wins the popular vote by that margin, I expect he'll probably be president. And if he wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college, the rules are the rules and I'm not sure I would support changing them, because then Obama would be getting into the White House in almost the same way Bush did in 2000, under stolen terms.

[PretzelWarrior]

19. that's not going to be an issue

NY, CA, MI, OH, IL, FL, MO, IN, OR, WA, MN, WI, and others will see to that.

[LiberalFighter]

20. Chuck Todd is a worthless POS. He is nothing but an agitator.

[Ravy]

25. He keeps moving the goalposts.

He was the first one I saw that claimed that a majority of the pledged delegates determined the winner.