What if Obama wins the Popular Vote but Loses in the Electoral College?

[madanthonywayne]

We seem to be headed for a tight election, and in this election there is a very real possibility that Obama could not just win the popular vote, but win it by a lot, and still lose the election.

Why? Because many big states like California are lost causes for Romney. He may not even bother to campaign there given the huge expense associated with the mass media markets in such states.

The result of this could be Obama piling up huge margins in the states he carries. Margins so big that Obama could win the overall popular vote while still losing in the electoral college.

In looking ahead toward the November election, Republican strategists should take proactive steps to avoid a damaging, dangerous conclusion to the presidential race and to prevent the very real chance that Mitt Romney will win the Electoral College even while losing the popular vote badly to Barack Obama.

The problem stems from the lopsided margins President Obama will surely pile up in a few uncontested states with big populations, including California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Romney, meanwhile, will likely prevail by comparable margins in only relatively small states: Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Alabama, and Alaska. The big states that offer Romney his most plausible path to Electoral College victory probably will be won by much smaller margins, leaving Obama with a clear popular-vote advantage.

All credible scenarios for a Romney victory with his “swing state” strategy begin with the presumptive GOP nominee holding all 22 states McCain carried, which are worth six additional electoral votes this time because of reapportionment. From this Republican base, Romney needs to implement a three/two/one trifecta: winning back the three traditionally Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia) that Obama carried last time; seizing the two perennial battlegrounds that elected George W. Bush twice (Ohio and Florida); and then winning one more state—even a very small state—(New Hampshire is a likely candidate) to bring him the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

In order to accomplish this feat, Romney needs to add as few as 650,000 votes to McCain’s totals in just six decisive states to get an Electoral College victory with the bare minimum of 270 votes, even though Obama won in 2008 with a near-landslide margin of nearly 9 million votes in the popular total—18 times Al Gore’s popular-vote advantage over Bush.

Mr. Obama could prevail by as much as the 7 percent margin that gave him victory last time, while still losing the Electoral College to Romney.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-america.html

Imagine Obama beating Romney by 7% in the popular vote yet still losing in the electoral college.

The question is, if this happens, what will be the result? The last time a sitting president won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college was Grover Cleveland. He quietly left office without raising a stink. Would Obama do the same? I doubt it.

[Balerion]

I'm curious why you'd have reason to doubt that Obama would "raise a stink" over losing an election. Barring any shady business like we saw in Florida in 2000, what recourse would he have?

And what was Grover Cleveland supposed to do? Lock the doors to the White House? And at any rate, Cleveland ran again in the next election--interestingly, an option that probably isn't viable to a one-term ex-president today.

[spidergoat]

Why do you doubt it? Oh, probably because you've been listening to a caricature of Obama as portrayed in the right wing media?

[quadraphonics]

We seem to be headed for a tight election,

Maybe you could cite the talking weasel that is the source of that opinion?

Because all of the indicators I've seen (intrade.com, electoral college projectors) have been indicating a solid victory for Obama for months now.

The question is, if this happens, what will be the result? The last time a sitting president won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college was Grover Cleveland. He quietly left office without raising a stink. Would Obama do the same? I doubt it.

What's with this "sitting president" qualifier? Did you imagine that nobody would recall that your guy lost the popular vote a mere 12 years ago, and then got his buddies in the court system to just declare him the winner?

But, the likely result would be exactly the same as in 2000: a lot of griping and renewed civics lessons about what purpose the electoral college serves. Possibly it would provide enough energy to get the National Popular Vote movement over the threshold, though.

Let's also recall that the mechanism by which Cleveland won the popular vote was systematic voter fraud in swing states (particularly, Indiana) by the Republican Party. They literally bribed people to vote for Harrison.

[madanthonywayne]

I'm curious why you'd have reason to doubt that Obama would "raise a stink" over losing an election. Barring any shady business like we saw in Florida in 2000, what recourse would he have?

He could gin up protests and create chaos in the streets to put pressure on electors to change their vote.

[spidergoat]

He could gin up protests and create chaos in the streets to put pressure on electors to change their vote.

Yeah, that sounds just like something a constitutional law professor would do.

[joepistole]

He could gin up protests and create chaos in the streets to put pressure on electors to change their vote.

The last time we had this crisis, it was your guys (Republicans) who were in the streets and in the election offices of the land causing mayhem and threatening worse despite loosing the plurality vote count. And it was the very activist Republican Supreme Court that handed the election to our man, Republican George Jr.

And despite the voting irregularities and partisan Supreme Court ruling, the Democrat inumbents stood aside to effect a smooth transition of power. Democrats did not run wild in the streets or in election offices across the land as Republicans did. So why should they do so now? Are Republicans projecting their personal shortcomings onto Democrats?

My guess is should it happen again, Americans will loose what little faith they may have in their "democracy" and one could understand why. It just might inspire enough anger in the American people that they change the way officials are elected. That should scare the hell out of every Republican leader and financial backer.

[Tiassa]

What if Obama wins the Popular Vote but Loses in the Electoral College?

Wouldn't be the first time this happened. You know ... as you noted.

We verged on that question in 2000.

We'll deal with it again when it comes up.

Meanwhile, I would point out (reiterate, as such) that in recent years, it's been conservatives and libertarians pushing to abolish the Electoral College.

On a personal level, I will simply note that this is why many liberals think it useless to converse with their conservative neighbors. After a while, we just get sick of the futility of of trying to communicate with people who refuse communication.

There are so many other important things going on. What is the value in this "intellectual" exercise? Something south of zero, to be quite honest.

If Obama sees an outcome that reflects your question, certainly some will be pissed; some will even riot. But I wonder how you conservatives would react if Democratic supporters staged their own "Brooks Brothers Riot" in order to swing the outcome. If you have any integrity, you won't complain if that's what happens in such a circumstance.

In other words, plenty of conservatives will complain if that's what happens.

Meanwhile, I doubt it will come to that. Romney has approximately one "large" state's grace in his path to victory. Perhaps you recall our recent exchange of thoughts about Florida, Rubio, and potential electoral outcomes.

[Believe]

We seem to be headed for a tight election, and in this election there is a very real possibility that Obama could not just win the popular vote, but win it by a lot, and still lose the election.

Why? Because many big states like California are lost causes for Romney. He may not even bother to campaign there given the huge expense associated with the mass media markets in such states.

The result of this could be Obama piling up huge margins in the states he carries. Margins so big that Obama could win the overall popular vote while still losing in the electoral college.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-america.html

Imagine Obama beating Romney by 7% in the popular vote yet still losing in the electoral college.

The question is, if this happens, what will be the result? The last time a sitting president won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college was Grover Cleveland. He quietly left office without raising a stink. Would Obama do the same? I doubt it.

Did not the same thing happen with Gore vs. Bush? Gore won the popular vote but Bush took the electoral college correct? (I could be wrong here)

[Gremmie]

Did not the same thing happen with Gore vs. Bush? Gore won the popular vote but Bush took the electoral college correct? (I could be wrong here)

Yes it did happen with Gore-Bush...


So we could have Seamus, I mean Romney, for 4 years...Heaven help us.

[madanthonywayne]

Meanwhile, I would point out (reiterate, as such) that in recent years, it's been conservatives and libertarians pushing to abolish the Electoral College.

Seriously? Which conservatives & Libertarians? The most serious effort towards eliminating it is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. A review of which states have passed it should make clear from which end of the political spectrum abolishing the electoral college draws it's strongest support: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California and the District of Columbia

On a personal level, I will simply note that this is why many liberals think it useless to converse with their conservative neighbors. After a while, we just get sick of the futility of of trying to communicate with people who refuse communication

And I'll note that on a personal level it is quite tiresome to converse with someone who so often feels the need to throw in a statement such as the above.

[CptBork]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will protect against such a scenario, provided enough states sign on to control at least 270 of the electoral votes. Makes no sense that someone with less votes should win the position when every vote should be equal regardless of where it's cast, and there's only one position in question. If states want their individual rights to be taken into account, that's what the Senate is for, and that's why each state has certain powers devolved to its independent control.

[quadraphonics]

Seriously? Which conservatives & Libertarians?

There are routinely outspoken libertarians suggesting such here on SciForums. Electoral college opposition is more of a populist cause than a partisan one, although there does seem to be some D slant on it currently owing to the selection of W some dozen years back.

The most serious effort towards eliminating it is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. A review of which states have passed it should make clear from which end of the political spectrum abolishing the electoral college draws it's strongest support: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California and the District of Columbia

Those are the states in which the effort has gone the furthest so far, but if you look at the details of the effort I don't think you'll find much of a clear partisan divide. There's been plenty of support from Republican lawmakers in various states. Again, it's a pretty enticing populist issue generally.

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised if Republicans disfavor such a measure, at least in the short term, since the various small states which are over-represented in the electoral college tend to be red states. But, we'd really expect that big (population-wise) states would be for this, while small population states would be against it. This is because states with big populations see their share of the vote dilluted by the electoral college, while small states have their voice boosted. A national popular vote would have campaigns focussed on the big populations that are current discounted - CA, TX, NY, etc. The fact that TX hasn't signed up is interesting - maybe they recognize that their former governor wouldn't have made it to the White House under such a system?

And I'll note that on a personal level it is quite tiresome to converse with someone who so often feels the need to throw in a statement such as the above.

I doubt that anybody has much sympathy for the fact that you don't appreciate being called on your trolling.

[quadraphonics]

Makes no sense that someone with less votes should win the position when every vote should be equal regardless of where it's cast,

Why not? Is not the USA a federation?

I mean, I get the principle of "one man one vote," but it isn't like there aren't reasons we have the system we do. It would be nice if advocates of the popular vote would address - rather than dismiss - them.

If states want their individual rights to be taken into account, that's what the Senate is for, and that's why each state has certain powers devolved to its independent control.

But, shouldn't the balance of power between the states in influencing the executive branch match the balance of power between the states in influencing the legislative branch? Why should big states get more of a say on who is President, than they do on who sits in the legislature?

[Michael]

I'm sure Obama will win the electoral college and the POTUS.
-
It would be interesting if such an incident did happen. He'd of course leave office. BUT it'd make for a great news cycle until American's forgot who that Obama guy was, say in 3-5 months.
-
We should think about going to direct vote and returning to when the person with the most votes is POTUS and the person with the second most votes is VPOTUS.

[keith1]

I'm sure Obama will win the electoral college and the POTUS.

I agree. I thought it was close, but then a bunch of old Republican fuds filled a room to talk about women's body function rights, then kicked all of the women out of the room. After Limbaugh tried his brand of "damage control" to divide women and make an effort to control their thoughts....well I think it's over, and , as a man who needs to have the women in his life talking to him when this is over...and woman always win...and so sticking with the women at this site (and the women in the electoral college-and the men on the electoral college who have to go home afterwards), I stand on the record that Romney is likely toast.
-

It would be interesting if such an incident did happen. He'd of course leave office. BUT it'd make for a great news cycle until American's forgot who that Obama guy was, say in 3-5 months.

If Romney stole the election, and the normal slow recovery continues into the next Presidential cycle (as it will surely slow down even more, with Romney in office, and no taxes for the rich turn into a payday for them) , you can count on the U.S. to be toast. Tear down the U.S. flags. But it will make a great news cycle until America's forgot...say 3-5 months.
-

We should think about going to direct vote and returning to when the person with the most votes is POTUS and the person with the second most votes is VPOTUS.

I agree because the electoral college picked Bush, and destroyed the country. Blame the electoral college!

[Grumpy]

Actually, it was the SCOTUS who stole the election for Bush. If the votes had been counted in Florida, Gore would have won the Electoral College as well as the popular vote, and the Rethuglicans knew it. Thus the "Brooks Brothers Riot"(which is where the name Rethuglicans was born, they wore suits, not Brown Shirts). And it was eight years of disaster! Made everyone miss ol' Slick Willie. And the Rethugs STILL are trying to push the very policies that got us in to this mess in the first place!

Grumpy

[madanthonywayne]

Actually, it was the SCOTUS who stole the election for Bush.

Untrue

Bush would have won if the count had gone forward according to a review by a consortium of news organizations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

[iceaura]

Bush would have won if the count had gone forward according to a review by a consortium of news organizations.

Bush would have lost if the Florida vote itself had been recounted, however, as was done in Minnesota in the Franken Senate vote.

And if the various forms of vote fraud and manipulation (misprinted ballots and confusing ballots were concentrated in known Gore-favoring districts, for example) had been handled, perhaps by a revote, Gore wins Florida by many thousands of votes.

That the Supreme Court decision may not have altered the most likely outcome of a rigged vote recount, does not legitimize that Court vote. The case should never have been heard, and at least two Justices should have recused themselves - both Republican.

And despite this obvious perfidy and vote-rigging, Gore accepted the outcome peacefully. As others have before him, and no reason to assume Obama any different.

I'm a little worried about this kind of thing bubbling up from the madanthonys of the world, though. One of the rules of thumb of American politics is that you get an idea of what the Reps are up to by tracking what they are accusing Dems of - if the Reps are setting up a serious exploit invovling the Electoral College to overturn what is looking like a solid majority of the popular vote for Obama, preparing in advance by poisoning the well of resistance, then setting things up so Obama is wrongfooted merely by insisting on recounts or investigations or invalidation of suspect electoral votes/voters would be a typical preparation.

[joepistole]

Untrue

Bush would have won if the count had gone forward according to a review by a consortium of news organizations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

It is true, Bush Jr. and the Republicans with the help of their partisans on the Supreme Court, did steal the presidential election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...oject_recounts

No matter how you look at it, had the US Supreme Court allowed all ballots to be recounted, Gore would have won. And a few things are certian, we would definately have less debt and be in a much stronger fiscal postion had the election not been stolen.

Should we mention the illegal purging of voter rolls by Republicans, illegally denying the right to vote to likely Democrat voters that year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File