Election 2004 "wargaming"

Guynemer · March 3, 2004, 22:02

Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, Kerry takes all the states that went blue last time:

CL, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI.

(And, apart from maybe New Mexico and Pennsylvania, I'd say that is all very likely.)

Let's say he takes New Hamshire--also very likely. That would bring his electoral college total to 264.

That would leave him 6 EC short of the Presidency.

But what if he got one more state: Nevada? (I'd estimate this is 50/50, or very very close to that.)

That would put him at 269--and, ladies and gentlemen, we would have a tie.

This is very very possible. (Could also happen if he wins Colorado but loses NH & NV--much less likely, but possible.)

Can you imagine the fallout this would have? The tiebreaker is that Congress decides--the House picks the Prez (one vote per state), and the Senate picks the Veep. Bush-Cheney would win.

There could very well be riots over this. Scary prospect.

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2004, 22:04

Quote:

Can you imagine the fallout this would have? The tiebreaker is that Congress decides--the House picks the Prez (one vote per state), and the Senate picks the Veep. Bush-Cheney would win.

There could very well be riots over this. Scary prospect.

Hey, that's the way the system works

. Rioters will get beat down

Q Classic · March 3, 2004, 22:10

i like riots. but please, will they tell the poor not to riot in their own neighborhoods, but in the rich peoples'?

like, don't riot in south central, go to beverly hills and riot.

Tripledoc · March 3, 2004, 22:11

Why was the electoral college designed so that a tie would be possible?

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2004, 22:15

WAIT!

They can't be tie (unless there is proportional elector giving). There are 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators. That means 535 Electors. That can't be divided in half easily. And Nader won't be taking any states to make it easily dividable.

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:18

Guynemer,

I don't see how Bush can lose in Colorado, and I really don't think that Bush will win in New Mexico. Pennsylvania is a possibility - but wouldn't trade be a big issue in that state?

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2004, 22:23

What state is CL?

Imran: there are 538 electors. You forgot DC's 3.

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:24

He meant CA, I think.

monkspider · March 3, 2004, 22:24

Holy crap!

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2004, 22:26

Quote:

Imran: there are 538 electors. You forgot DC's 3.

Doh! I keep forgetting they get electors... since they don't get anything else.

mrmitchell · March 3, 2004, 22:26

Quote:

Why was the electoral college designed so that a tie would be possible?

The bigger question:

Why was the electoral college designed?

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:26

Does DC have a primary? I assume they do, and if so, it seems as if Al Sharpton might actually have a chance of winning one

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2004, 22:27

I think a big factor in an electoral tie would be the popular vote totals. If the scenario above has Kerry winning more of the popular vote, then the tie-breaker to Bush in Congress might indeed spark massive upheaval. If Bush had the popular vote edge, however, he could lay claim to being the legitimate winner.

The pressure on the GOP to follow the popular vote leader in this case would be enormous. If they didn't they could be accused of incredibly stupid short-sightedness, as a temporary gain would be met in subsequent elections with a great deal of retribution from voters.

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:28

I'd also assume that the vote in Congress would NOT be totally along party lines.

Imran Siddiqui · March 3, 2004, 22:29

Why not?

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:30

Hey, maybe we'll have another compromise election, like the Hayes-Tilden election in 1877.

To Bush: "End the war, and you can stay in office."

monkspider · March 3, 2004, 22:30

I think the prospects for Civil War following this election are the greatest since 1860, especially since Kerry will probably get the popular vote. Imagine what would happen if Congress handed the election to Bush with the popular vote going to Kerry, especially since it will probably be by a greater margin than in 2000.

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:32

Civil war? Come on, monkspider, that's not even within the realm of possibility.

(besides, the South would clean up

)

DinoDoc · March 3, 2004, 22:34

Let me ask you people a question. How likely do you people really think a tie is? We didn't even have one in 00 when it was the Dems that had the advantage of incumbancy. What makes you think we'll have one now?

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2004, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let me ask you people a question. How likely do you people really think a tie is? We didn't even have one in 00 when it was the Dems that had the advantage of incumbancy. What makes you think we'll have one now?

Quote:

Let's say, for the sake of argument

Welcome to hypothetical situations.

mrmitchell · March 3, 2004, 22:36

Quote:

(besides, the South would clean up )

This wouldn't be a North-South "civil war". In fact, a more appropriate name would be anarchy.

Democrat and Republican voters are spread along all states and no state has enough of a proportion to act as one. Chances are if this "civil war" that monkspider seems to get a hardon for ever did come about, he wouldn't be killing some jackass from Florida: he'd be killing his neighbor.

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:36

I don't find it likely, it's just an interesting prospect.

Personally, I think it'll be a tight election, but I think ultimately Bush will lose in Florida and maybe New Hampshire this time, and I doubt he'll pick up any new states. That'll cost him.

Nubclear · March 3, 2004, 22:36

If Bush doesn't win, I'll cry

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:37

Quote:

Democrat and Republican voters are spread along all states and no state has enough of a proportion to act as one. Chances are if this "civil war" that monkspider seems to get a hardon for ever did come about, he wouldn't be killing some jackass from Florida: he'd be killing his neighbor.

Yeah, and that's my point. Seriously: How many people do you know who would kill each other over politics? I mean ****, I hate Bush, but I'm not gonna shoot my neighbor for voting for him.

mrmitchell · March 3, 2004, 22:37

Quote:

but I think ultimately Bush will lose in Florida

"ultimately," he did 4 years ago too...so?

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2004, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
If Bush doesn't win, I'll cry

Tears of joy?

DinoDoc · March 3, 2004, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Welcome to hypothetical situations.

I like mine to be remotely possible. It helps with believeability.

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2004, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I like mine to be remotely possible. It helps with believeability.

How many before 2000 thought that whole recount situation in FL was "remotely" possible?

This seems to me to be just as likely a scenario, which is to say, unlikely, but possible.

David Floyd · March 3, 2004, 22:39

Quote:

"ultimately," he did 4 years ago too...so?

Debatable, but again, exactly my point: He "lost" really because too many stupid voters didn't understand a childishly easy ballot. Even Pat Buchanan came out and said something along those lines, IIRC. They aren't so stupid as to make the same mistake twice.

Nubclear · March 3, 2004, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Tears of joy?

Tears of ultimate sadness.