Electoral College Tie?

[tailfins]

If Romney wins all the "tossup" states except NH, it will be an Electoral College tie at 269. All those states are traditionally Republican.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

[logroller]

here's a fairly clear run down of what happens in the event of tie. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/national-popular-vote_b_1916655.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

The electoral college is beyond retarded. I've never understood why electors aren't forced (nor even allowed in most to states) to vote based on their representative district's popular tally, rather than the winner take all.

[tailfins]

here's a fairly clear run down of what happens in the event of tie. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/national-popular-vote_b_1916655.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

The electoral college is beyond retarded. I've never understood why electors aren't forced (nor even allowed in most to states) to vote based on their representative district's popular tally, rather than the winner take all.

We have the electoral college so that Obama can't squeak by after getting 250% of the vote in Chicago. The Maine/Nebraska method of apportioning electors might be a viable option.

[fj1200]

States elect the POTUS not individuals. But then again state legislatures used to select Senators. Repeal the 17th and require runoffs for any Federal election that isn't decided by one candidate receiving 50% +1.

[fj1200]

We have the electoral college so that Obama can't squeak by after getting 250% of the vote in Chicago. The Maine/Nebraska method of apportioning electors might be a viable option.

Your suggestion would only skew the results in a different manner by forcing candidates to focus on particular districts rather than states, I wonder how many districts would be in play compared to states, and would grant more power to the state legislatures in how they gerrymander their districts.

It would also force me to be subjected to political ads that I now don't have to see... so a pox on your idea.

[Little-Acorn]

Some states require their electors to vote for the candidate they originally pledged, no matter how many times they vote (in case of a tie).

Others require them to vote for their pledged candidate on only the first ballot, after which they can change if they want to in case there's a second ballot (I believe there's never been a second ballot since, maybe, the election of Thomas Jefferson, correct?).

And I believe that a few states do not require their electors to stick to their pledge even on the first ballot, though it's very rare for an elector who pledged to one candidate to suddenly vote for another.

IIRC, in the Bush-versus-Gore election in 2000, OwlGore harangued a lot of the electors and spent a lot of money, trying to get some of them to change their vote and vote for him (Gore) instead. His efforts had results, but not the ones he was hoping for: One Gore elector got fed up and changed his vote to a third-party candidate!

[logroller]

Your suggestion would only skew the results in a different manner by forcing candidates to focus on particular districts rather than states, I wonder how many districts would be in play compared to states, and would grant more power to the state legislatures in how they gerrymander their districts.

It would also force me to be subjected to political ads that I now don't have to see... so a pox on your idea.

3964 Legit reasoning.:eek: