T1B

Wolfman wrote:What would be hilarious if there was an electoral college tie. The President would be elected by the House of Representatives with each of the 50 states getting ONE (yes one) vote. Chances are Romney would win. What's really wild is that the VP is elected by the Senate. Because it is controlled by the Dems,we would end up with a Romney-Biden combination. And that would even be more wild if there was a tie Senate vote and Biden got to vote for himself. All highly unlikely, but could happen under the law.

A Romney-Biden White House? It could happen

What happens if there's an electoral college tie of 269 votes apiece? The House elects the president and the Senate elects the veep. And what if there's a tie there? Can you say President Boehner?
October 28, 2012|By John Klotsche
"Congress to pick the president." — headline, Nov. 7, 2012.

Sound ridiculous? Daft? Not at all.

The magic number is 270 — electoral college votes that is — to win the big prize. According to 270towin.com, there are now 11 "battleground" states and, statistically, 32 permutations from these up-for-grab states that could produce a 269-vote electoral college tie in the presidential election.

Based on the site's simulated polls, the mathematical probability of a tie increased almost fourfold in recent weeks — from 0.3% to 1.1%. And both political camps concede the race is tightening each day. Is there more gridlock ahead? It's a small but scary possibility.

So what if one of these 32 combos comes to pass? No, unlike Gore vs. Bush in 2000, the issue doesn't go to the Supreme Court for resolution, at least not right away. It turns out the Constitution has a nifty, two-step solution.

First, the 435 House members convene to elect the president. But only 50 votes are cast, one per state, so the delegates from each state first vote to determine how their state will cast its one vote. The current House GOP majority (240 to 190) has Romney likely getting the nod. But that could quickly change because it's the newly elected House that casts the critical vote.

Next, the 100 senators convene to elect the vice president. The current Senate makeup favors the Democrats 51 to 47, with two independents, so Joe Biden would keep his No. 2 gig. Again, that razor-thin margin could move on election day.

And if there's a tie vote in either the Senate or House? We'll get to that.

Instinctively, a 269-vote tie would be an urgent call to action to amend the Constitution to scrap the archaic procedure and stipulate that a simple majority of the total popular vote takes the prize. Surely we'll never get a tie with 132 million or so votes being cast.

But there are a few more bumps on this presidential road.

Could electors cast their vote for someone other than the popular vote winner in their state? Twenty-six states have feckless laws prohibiting that, and in most states, it doesn't usually happen. Yet there are always the "faithless" electors — those who flip their vote. It has happened 156 times in our history, though about half of those were votes involving candidates who died between the election and the electoral college vote. But 82 votes did involve a change of allegiance. And it has been reported that three GOP electors who support libertarian Ron Paul are making noise about refusing to vote for Mitt Romney. Remember, it may take only one switcheroo.

Let's assume the college affirms the 269-tie vote so the gridlocked issue moves to Congress. In the House, what happens if the states deadlock at 25-25? The vice president takes charge as acting president until the House breaks the stalemate. But wait, that's true only if the veep "qualifies," which Biden wouldn't until the Senate elects him. So the House speaker — currently John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) — would serve as acting president. But wait again. Boehner is required to resign as both speaker and House member to serve in his new role, something he may not fancy. If Boehner declines to serve, the acting president gig defaults to none other than the venerable Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), the 88-year-old Senate president pro tempore.

Then there is the tricky political dynamic of House members' loyalties to their party versus their constituents. It often happens that a House member wins the congressional election but the same district goes for the other party's presidential candidate. The conundrum for the House member: Should party loyalty trump a clear electoral mandate of the district's voters, and, by the by, how will my shameless partisanship affect my reelection in two years?

In the Senate, the Constitution generally provides that a 50-50 vote allows the vice president in his capacity as president of the Senate to break the stalemate. That means Joe Biden would vote for Joe Biden and, voila, elect Joe Biden — surely a troublesome result. The better procedure is the one described above for the House: Boehner or Inouye take charge until the Senate gerrymanders 51 votes for a vice president.

And speaking of gerrymandering, for the House or the Senate to cast a tie-breaking vote for either president or vice president, the Constitution stipulates a two-thirds quorum requirement. What happens if the putative losing party (likely Democrats in the House, the GOP in the Senate) decides to go AWOL? Recall just last year the Democratic caucuses in Wisconsin and Indiana high-tailed it across their respective state lines for weeks, successfully thwarting a legislative quorum on controversial anti-union legislation. The political shenanigans in our nation's capitol during a lawmakers' exodus would be breathtaking.

If the hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads in Bush vs. Gore made you scoff, then just wait until the Supreme Court tackles the election of the odd couple — Mitt and Joe. Or maybe Barack and Paul.

But wait one final time. What's wrong with a White House served by both parties? Isn't it time for our politicians to lead by example and kick-start genuine bipartisanship right from the top?

Jsc810 wrote: Obama 303
Romney 235

Jsc810 wrote:538 votes in the electoral college, 270 votes are needed to win the presidency.

While I might change these numbers slightly in the next week, right now I'm calling it:

Obama 303
Romney 235

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:It is my humble prediction, nothing more. If I'm wrong, it won't be the first or last time.

I sincerely hope you are as accurate in your electroral college prediction in 2012 as you were in 2008...

Here is mine:

Jsc810 wrote: Well, insofar as the votes haven't been counted yet, yeah it is just my guess. That's kinda the point of this thread. You're welcome and invited to put your guess here as well.

BSmack wrote:And it would be bigger if there weren't so many bitter racist fucks around.

Jsc810 wrote:AP’s polling unit

War Wagon wrote:88, the flaw in your logic is using Rasmussen polls. You might as well be using NewsMax.

I'll say again, it comes down to Ohio. If your feel for it, living there, is that Romney wins, I'm going to ride that for all it's worth.

BSmack wrote:And it would be bigger if there weren't so many bitter racist fucks around.

Papa Willie wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Now that you mention it ...

Poll finds fresh increase in US racism

Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the US elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll has found.

Released on Saturday, the AP poll used a combination of explicit and implicit questions about race and found that prejudice has increased slightly since 2008.

The study, conducted online by GfK Custom Research under the supervision of AP’s polling unit, included interviews with 1,071 adults between August and September 2012.

In all, 51 per cent of those polled expressed explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey.
When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 per cent, up from 49 per cent during the last presidential election.

In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago,'' said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey. ...

Any reason you posted an article that came from Aljazeera?

Regardless - this is nothing more than a ploy to make those on the fence feel sorry for King Coon.

88 wrote:In Wisconsin, most of the polls show Obama with a slight lead. Rasmussen has it tied. I think the Republican ground game, which defeated the Democrat ground game twice in recent elections, comes away with a narrow victory here.

Van wrote:The bitch of it all? bradhusker vanished a few months ago and still I'll have to bail on this place in a couple of weeks if 88's prediction turns out to be correct.

88 wrote:

Felix wrote:

Van wrote:The bitch of it all? bradhusker vanished a few months ago and still I'll have to bail on this place in a couple of weeks if 88's prediction turns out to be correct.

ditto

It looks like TiC is the third member of the potentially "hungused by bradhusker trio"

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40538&hilit=bet&start=520

Jsc810 wrote: and created my own electoral college map.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:Ohio is tied in most polls, with Rasmussen giving Romney a slight edge. I live here, and I have not seen the groundswell that lifted Obama to 52% here in 2008. I think he loses here by 4% or more.

Jsc810 wrote:Derron, make your picks and we'll see who was most accurate next week.

Cuda wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:Ohio is tied in most polls, with Rasmussen giving Romney a slight edge. I live here, and I have not seen the groundswell that lifted Obama to 52% here in 2008. I think he loses here by 4% or more.

all that means is Nate Silver is a bigger Obama dong huffer than you

Willard has 293 locked up. Obamy has already lost CO, OH, IA & WI. If Willard takes PA, the ass-raping is on. It's inevitabe, so just lay back & enjoy it

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_p ... mapid=bclc

mvscal wrote:
Of course it's all total nonsense.

Jsc810 wrote:

Cuda wrote:all that means is Nate Silver is a bigger Obama dong huffer than you

You do understand that Nate Silver doesn't take polls, right? He takes the results of polls that other people do, and then puts them into his election model. Evidently he has quite a track record, we'll see soon enough if that continues.

Make your call, and prove you know better than Nate and others. Here is your chance.

Jsc810 wrote:538 votes in the electoral college, 270 votes are needed to win the presidency.

While I might change these numbers slightly in the next week, right now I'm calling it:

Obama 303
Romney 235

Truman wrote:...you brain-dead, Baby Huey-looking fuck:

Here is the algorithm for combining polls to make the map.

The most recent poll in every state is always used.
If no other polls were taken within a week of the most recent one, only the most recent poll counts.
If one or more other polls were taken within a week of the most recent, all of them are averaged, weighted equally.
This algorithm smoothes out fluctations better and produces fewer wild swings and gives a better overall result. You can see which polls were used by putting the mouse on a state. The Source field tells which polls are used and gives the final date of the final poll used. If multiple polls were used, the first nine characters of each pollster are listed and the pollsters are separated by a "+" sign.

The EVP average page uses these scores.

A consequence of this algorithm is that in the "News from the Votemaster" section, a new poll may be reported but the map gives a different result. This effect is always due to multiple recent polls being averaged. You will see that this is the case by looking for the "+" sign used to separate multiple pollsters in the Source field of the pop-up box. Another consequence of this algorithm, is that this site may give slightly different results from other polling sites, each of which uses its own algorithm, sometimes a far more complex one.

Why a look-back window of 1 week? It is admittedly arbitrary. If the window is too short, the results gyrate wildly as different polls use different methodologies . If the window is too long, genuine shifts in public opinion take too long to show up. The choice of 1 week is based on my now-extensive experience with examining polling data. Public reaction to news events often takes several days to take effect as people often change their opinions after talking to friends, coworkers, and relatives.

It is worth emphasizing that the margin of error in most state polls is at least 3% for each candidate. Thus if a poll says Smith is beating Jones 52% to 48%, Smith might be as low as 49% and Jones might be as high as 51%. When the difference between two candidates is less than 2x the margin of error, the race is a statistical tie. On the map, the states with a white center are those where the candidates differ by less than 5% and are certainly statistical ties. Even some of the ones in the solid light color may technically be statistical ties, but a lead of 5% or more most likely means the candidate is actually ahead.

88 wrote:Virginia is in Romney's column in most of the polls. I'm following the mainstream here.

The fact that New Hampshire is in play should give any Obama supporter chills.

Sudden Sam wrote:WTF is wrong with you people?!

Do you not realize that Alabama plays LSU and Oregon plays USC tomorrow night?