November 5, 2004
FOUR FOR FRIDAY from GUEST BELI-BLOGGER DAVE MEEK.... FUN WITH HYPOTHETICALS
Consider the historic charts below:
2000 Election
271 Electoral College votes - 50.46 million - Bush - WIN
266 Electoral College votes - 51.00 million - Gore
2004 Election
286 Electoral College votes - 59.40 million popular votes - Bush - WIN
252 Electoral College votes - 55.90 million popular votes - Kerry
In Ohio, Bush won by just 136,483 votes. Now, suppose that Kerry tallied just 150,000 more swing votes in Ohio winning all 20 of Ohio's Electoral College votes. This, of course, would render the following chart:
2004 Election Hypothetical
266 Electoral College votes - 59.05 million popular votes - Bush
272 Electoral College votes - 55.75 million popular votes - Kerry - WIN
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes but lost the election, which caused Democrats to question the legitimacy of President Bush's administration, notwithstanding Florida's ballot problems.
Consider the aforementioned hypothetical yet plausible outcome of Kerry winning Ohio and therefore the presidency but losing the popular vote handily by a margin of 3.3 million votes, more than 6 times the amount Bush lost to Gore in 2000.
My questions are for Democrats but that shouldn't stop Republicans or Independents from making comments:
Q1: Would you honestly question the legitimacy of a Kerry Administration in 2004 with the same vigor you questioned the legitimacy of the Bush Administration in 2000?
Q2: Would your feelings about the legitimacy of the Electoral College change?
Q3: Along with the presidency, the GOP picked up 4 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate including Tom Daschle's, the Senate Minority Leader. Additionally, 11 Same-Sex Marriage Amendments were defeated. In your opinion, has the country embraced Republican values or rejected Democrat values?
Q4: How should the Democrats change in 2008 in order to regain control of the House, Senate, or White House?
Posted by Guest Beli-Blogger Dave Meek at November 5, 2004 12:01 AM
| TrackBack
I didnít question Bushís legitimacy based on the Electoral College vs. the popular vote, but on the fact of all the voter irregularities in Florida. This time I think the election went much smoother even though most of the electronic voting machines do not have a paper trail and also that the president of Diebold promised to deliver Ohio for the Republicans
The Electoral College I think served its purpose and should be cast aside in favor of the popular vote. It might have been a good idea in the colonial past but now it causes more trouble and unrest.
I believe that Democrats lost the election because the Republicans were better at organizing the religious right. As much as I hate to admit it, the Same-Sex marriage probably lost the election for the Democrats. The time is not yet right to push that issue as witnessed by all of the anti-same-sex marriage amendments that pasted.
I believe that the Democrats should concentrate on Social Security, health insurance, taxes and the environment. Their core values.
1. Yes, every administration should be scrutinized regardless of whether I agree with their ideals or not.
2. No. I've always felt that the Electoral College wasn't the greatest way to settle an election.
3. I optimistically hope that people haven't rejected liberal values. Otherwise--I don't think most people are ready for anything progressive. Or perhaps they are afraid of change.
4. Since I'm no political junkie, I'll just say I have no idea.
1.I never questioned the legitamcy of the Bush administration.
2. I think if you see a map of how the country voted, you understand that the Electoral college works.
3. I don't think same sex marriage has anything to do with being Democrat or Republican. Oregon, which is a very Democrat state, voted down just such an amendment. I'm not sure Democratic values were ever really presented. It seemded that Kerry was presented as the "the anything but Bush candidate." I felt from the beginning that was a mistake.
4. Both parties need to revamp their approach next time. I think the whole country was tired of the negativity. Both parties need good candidates with a strong defined platform.
Q1: Under the circumstances you propose, while I would certainly question the legitimacy of the Kerry win, because of my slightly left-of-center leaning, I honestly would not question it as much as I did Bush's in 2000.
Q2: No, since I favor a winner-take-all system, my feelings about the legitimacy of the Electoral College would not change. The Electoral College continues to leave much to be desired. Chief among my concerns:
A. The possibility of electing a minority president, as we did in 2000;
B. The College's role in depressing voter turnout, i.e. since states are entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of voter turnout, it seems to many that there is no incentive in the states to encourage voter participation; and
C. The College's failure to accurately reflect the national popular will, as was the case in 2000.
Q3: I believe that we've seen both (embracing of Republican values and some rejecting of Democratic ones). In Ohio, for instance, it's quite possible that the that state's gay marriage ballot measure actually caused hundreds of thousands of voters who might not have otherwise chosen to vote to get out and vote for the measure banning gay marriage. In that scenario, it's quite plausible that those same voters also chose to vote to reelect President Bush because of his stance on that very issue. Had the gay marriage issue not been on the ballot in Ohio, we might have seen a different result in that state, and perhaps overall. Ohio is a classic example of a state which embraced Republican values while at the same time rejected Democratic ones.
Q4: In order for the Democrats to win in 2008, they need to choose a candidate who can win. Plain and simple... John Kerry was not elect-able. They also need to focus their platform on issues and solutions which make a difference in citizens lives on a daily basis, and they need to have a clear plan for communicating this to the voters. Thereís more of course, but for now thatíll do.
1. I would, frankly, but not to the same extent as I questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 elections. This is because of the blatant corruption that I saw and read about in 2000. Kerry does not have a brother as the Governer of a battleground state. Kerry does not even have his own Cruella DeVille (Katherine Harris) fixing things for him. Kerry would not even have the support of a right wing majority Supreme Court bench handing him the Presidency on a Platter.
2. The Electoral College is a fundamentally flawed and undemocratic system. This is not just my gut opinion, but based on a reading of the pros and cons. Someone earlier has given very cogent reasons for this view so I will not repeat them. If anyone wants to read up, I suggest a visit to slate.com where William Saletan takes the Electoral College apart in a brilliant series of articles. It is amazing for me that a country like the US, priding itself on its scientific temper still has such an unscientific system in place. But then maybe my findamental premise fo the scientific temper is incorrect, seeing the recent strength of the religious right...!!!
3. Neither. Tom Dascle lost because he's (from my objective understanding) a pusillaminous chump. He tries to straddle the fence on everything. He's an unimpressive, incompetent man, period.
Coming to the same sex marriage ban, I feel that the Democrats/Liberals (or are they not the same? heh heh) make too much of it. In modern history and society, ALL (and I repeat, ALL) countries have been anti-homosexuality. I'm not saying that's correct or good, but that's reality. It will take time for societies to change. Th liberals are trying to hasten that change without taking into account the feelings of not only the right, but also the ambivalent left! Give it time, don't rush it and it will happen. Worry about Roe vs. Wade instead!
4. Democrats should pick a guy who has come up the hard way, even if s/he is rich now, and is in touch with the grassroots, preferably with links to the South. Someone like Edwards will be more effectice, in my view, than a Hilary, who is a deeply polarizing figure.
After I posted my comment I came across this news article. I wonder how many more errors will be found.
Associated Press
09:50 AM Nov. 05, 2004 PT
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.
Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.
Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told the Columbus DispatchÖ..
Q1: Yes
Q2: This was the first election since George Senior won in 1988 that the candidate won with both the electoral and popular vote. The electoral college should probably be reviewed.
Q3: On the single issue of same sex, I don't think most folks regardless of political affiliation are really for this.
Q4: That's a million dollar question. The Demos would like to know that. Depending on how the Repubs perform over the next 4 years may make this an easy or hard test. At some point the Demos are going to look at their rising star, Obama in Illinois, although he is pretty young.
Post a Comment:
|
