Студопедия
Случайная страница | ТОМ-1 | ТОМ-2 | ТОМ-3
АрхитектураБиологияГеографияДругоеИностранные языки
ИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураМатематика
МедицинаМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогика
ПолитикаПравоПрограммированиеПсихологияРелигия
СоциологияСпортСтроительствоФизикаФилософия
ФинансыХимияЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника

Question 2: If Ian Cheney is right and Romney wins the popular vote and Obama wins the Electoral College, what sort of reaction can we expect from the right?

Читайте также:
  1. A dream in the hands of the right person is a winner every time
  2. A LONG-EXPECTED PARTY
  3. A question of taste. Fashion.
  4. A Reaction Essay
  5. A Real Hard Right
  6. A rights issue
  7. A very unexpected turn of events has placed Putin and Russia in the driver’s seat in Syria and the Mideast.

Ian Cheney: (Um, how about when Ian Cheney is right?) If I am right, and Mitt Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election, I expect fury from the right that dwarfs the left’s fury from 2000. In 2000, the left had not yet had the time to truly despise George W. Bush. They did not have a full term of policies with which they vehemently disagreed. Conservatives have seen four years of an Obama Administration and therefore feel much more passionately about his defeat than Dems did toward Governor Bush 12 years ago. Moreover, let’s remember that the modern Republican Party is grounded in a “small government, gun in every house” mentality. That type of base is much more adverse to being told that the “will of the people” is being ignored as Washington D.C. hands you a big-government leader due to what some might construe as the small print that is the Electoral College.

Ben Hoffman: (Um, first, has Ian Cheney ever been wrong?) Second, one important clarification: in 2000 the left was not primarily angry about an electoral-popular split. The left was angry because we believed that, absent Sunshine State shenanigans and Supreme Court-halted recounts, there would not have been an electoral-popular split. Gore would have won both! Third, as Ian notes, yes, the far right is more prone to, um, insanity. Remember that some conservatives believe Barack Obama used voter fraud to steal the 2008 election, which he won by 10 million votes. Fourth, as I’ve written before, consider that many would consider even a legitimate Obama victory illegitimate because it was only earned by giving free handouts to all those takers. (Although it won’t happen, nothing would be funnier than Obama winning the electoral college while gaining exactly 47% of the popular vote – can you even imagine?!) Finally, you should really read Jane Mayer’s entire New Yorker piece on the myth of voter fraud, but for now skip directly to the last paragraph where conservatives try to hide their glee at the thought of initiating multiple recounts and lawsuits if Obama ekes out a close win.

Stephen Kurczy: We can at least expect Clint Eastwood to produce, direct, and star in a movie about it, al la Hollywood’s “Recount” about the Florida debacle in 2000. But I’ll leave further prognostications to a real member of the right, Mr. Lawson...

Josh Lawson: I have a rather significant bet with my wife about this. So I almost didn’t even answer the question (who wants to tempt fates?). But if the unthinkable does occur, it will mean that four of the past six presidential elections advanced a candidate who most voters opposed (Clinton ’92, Clinton ’96, Bush ’00, Obama ’12). I expect conservatives would still stick to their guns regarding the Electoral College—support for the current model is deeply integrated into the federalism fabric. However, I’m honestly more interested to see what the left would do. Take it from a Republican whose candidate won because our system effectively allows acres to vote: it’s tough being the democratic winner by counter-majoritarian means.

Anthony Resnick: I’m going to take this opportunity to (partially) preemptively defend my liberal brethren from charges of hypocrisy if this scenario does in fact play out: a Barack Obama popular vote loss/electoral vote win would be less unfair than George Bush’s 2000 victory, and not just because of shenanigans in Florida. The biggest inequity in the Electoral College is that it gives every state, regardless of size, two extra votes because of its two senators (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, because of pity for not having any senators at all). California has about 66 times as many people as Wyoming but only about 18 times the number of electoral votes. (Another way of running the numbers—California has roughly the same population as the 20 least populous states + D.C. One group of 36 million people has 55 electoral votes, the other has 89). Take away two electoral votes from every state, and Al Gore wins the 2000 election. But, if the election is close, President Obama is almost certain to win fewer states than Governor Romney, so taking away two votes from every state would only increase his Electoral College margin. So, Obama will have won in spite of, not because of, the biggest flaw in the Electoral College. That said, the Electoral College in any form is a bad idea, and if this scenario does happen and there is outrage from conservatives, liberals would be smart to try to capitalize on that and move quickly to abolish the Electoral College. It wouldn’t happen, but it would make for some interesting contortions on both sides.


Дата добавления: 2015-11-16; просмотров: 51 | Нарушение авторских прав


<== предыдущая страница | следующая страница ==>
Question 1: On net, how much did Super PACs matter?| Question 3: If Romney wins, where should Nate Silver go to hide from the irate liberals who have been duped into a false sense of security?

mybiblioteka.su - 2015-2024 год. (0.011 сек.)