when you have a Ralph Nader causing 10 million voters to stay home?
remember if you were into politics in 1999-2000, the common thought was that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win the electoral vote, and Bush would use the
illegitimate tag on Gore
It ended up being a major surprise to most that Gore actually won the popular vote and was unexpected.
a direct popular vote would only work IMHO if the same day voters had to pick their 2nd choice if neither candidates got 50%.
Because you can bet a Sheldon Adelson, or the Koch brothers would attempt, in a direct vote race that the winner wins with no run off, MANY other candidates, all republicans at heart
or bribes some (let's say angry democratic person who quits in a huff or loses their seat,
so for the example, let's say Sheldon Adelson told AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE,
(we won't use 2000 because well, that indeed is what happened with the ahole Nader)
but let's use 2008, let's say in 2008 Sheldon A. gave sleezeball John Edwards a billion dollars to run independent. Who would say the sleeze wouldn't have jumped at the chance and being that his ploy was turned down to be in the cabinet, exacted his revenge and that would have given McCain say an extra 10% popular vote
THIS IS ONLY A FAKE EXAMPLE. BUT it is politics and it is NOT illegal by any means
(aka-Nader did it and some still idolize the fool).
CAN ONE SAY THAT WOULDN'T THEORETICALLY could not have HAPPENED in 2008?
All it would take is money.
You can NOT bet on baseball and be sure you bet on the winner
(you cannot soft toss a pitch and guarantee a HR, as so many in the HR derby do NOT go out of the ball park).
HOWEVER if you play to have someone lose, you sure as hell can, by having an error, or a wild pitch with the bases loaded after walking three in a row in a tied ballgame.
It is why every democratic voter needs to vote, at any and all costs and time.
and we need to play the game one dollar richer, and one ounce of dirt dirtier than they do.
because a winner does what a loser won't- which is get seated.
It is far too easy to bribe one candidate, than it is to mess with the electoral college as long as all the voters possible vote.
(btw, on the other side, Ross Perot did just that with his personal grudge against 41.
He was not against the Bush message, as he supported W and will support Jeb against HIllary45.
It was personal against 41 only.
He ran to make sure 41 lost.
Do you think a meglamaniac billionaire would be scared off by a simple dirty trick?
He did not want to win.
He wanted to stop 41
and he did.
But never should a president be seated with just 41 percent, even if we want that candidate.
think about it.
they should outlaw third party runs before thinking of going to a popular vote without same day runoff(I personally would outlaw them anyhow, have a direct primary, top two over 50% after a few rounds, run in the general election, no matter the party)
(AND NOT a later run off, it has to be same day, you can't run a second campaign quickly.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
