electoral college? who needs it!

[Kandahar]

not necesarily.
it does, however, show tha their argument is made in bad faith.
We should change the Constitution when one side argues in bad faith?

If the arguments are sound, sure, why not?

Suppose I'm a politician in the 1910s who would benefit from women having the right to vote. Does this mean women should NOT have the right to vote, because some people might view my support as "made in bad faith"?

At which point the whining about the EC would stop.

Well I can't speak for everyone who's against the EC, but I've been against it since before 2000.

Except that the election eould no longer be a state election, it would be a federal election, and since there is nothing to "win" at the state level, there is no "winner" or "loser".

Right, but each state can still determine their own margin for recounting the votes. Example: Arizona's state law might say that the presidential vote in Arizona will be recounted if the winner's margin of victory nationwide is less than 0.5%. New Mexico's state law might say that the presidential vote in New Mexico will be recounted if the winner's margin of victory nationwide is less than 0.25%.

BS. Jiohn Edwards was up all night argung that they should go for a recount.

Do you have a source for this?

Kerry decided the margin was too large.

Which it was. By a lot.

It was right at the threshhold.
100K in TX? CA? NY? More than close enough.

No it's not. If Al Gore was unable to move even 1,000 votes in a big state like Florida, what makes you think John Kerry would have been able to move 100,000 in ANY state? It's simply not mathematically possible.

Remember state totals dont matter any more, only the overall total.
It doesnt matter where the votes to change the overall total come from, so there's no reason to NOT recounr EVERY state.

OK, let's assume that in 2008 the election doesn't use the EC, and let's assume that the popular vote margin is as slim nationwide as it was in Florida in 2000. Adjusted for population, this would mean the popular vote nationwide would come down to 10,760 votes. Now ignoring the astronomical improbability of a nationwide election of ~100 million voters coming down to such a small margin, how likely would a recount be that would change the result of the election, even at this tiny margin?

If an election like that resulted in Florida x50, as you claim could happen, remember that the candidate that was behind would have to succeed in doing IN ALL FIFTY STATES what Al Gore was unable to do in one. Of course, failure to do so in one state could be made up by gains in others, but the point stands. You saw how difficult it was to move only a few hundred votes in Florida; it's simply not plausible for a candidate to be able to move that many votes nationwide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the arguments are sound, sure, why not?
Suppose I'm a politician in the 1910s who would benefit from women having the right to vote. Does this mean women should NOT have the right to vote, because some people might view my support as "made in bad faith"?

If you have to deceive people to agree with you, its a pretty good sign that your argument is unsound.

Well I can't speak for everyone who's against the EC, but I've been against it since before 2000.

Most people dont even know what the EC is, much less have an informed opnion of it. Yours is certainly a minority view, even more so before thatdamned GWB stole the election.

Right, but each state can still determine their own margin for recounting the votes.

You assume.
Its entirely possible that the federal laws necessary to create this election, as well as the amendmet necessary to allow it, might specify the margin. 0.5% is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Remember - there would no longer be 50 state elections, there woudl be one national election.

Do you have a source for this?

Here;s one:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1615395,00.html
One senior Democrat familiar with the discussions in Boston said Kerry's running mate, North Carolina senator John Edwards, was suggesting that he shouldn't concede.
The official said Edwards, a trial lawyer, wanted to make sure all options were explored and that Democrats pursued them as thoroughly as Republicans would if the positions were reversed.
Advisers said the campaign just wanted one last look for uncounted ballots that might close the 136 000-vote advantage Bush held in Ohio.

Which it was. By a lot.

A little less, and it would not have been.
Point is, Ohio isnt that big of a state, and ~100k would have been close enough - its not at all hard to imagine a 500k vote margin across the entire country ending with recounts.

No it's not. If Al Gore was unable to move even 1,000 votes in a big state like Florida, what makes you think John Kerry would have been able to move 100,000 in ANY state? It's simply not mathematically possible.

You're making a msitake.
Gore was looking at a very very small number of ballots - just the overvotes and undervotes, as the count for all the other voted had been certified -- I think it was fewer that 20,000 ballots, the vast majority of which had no vote whatsoever. A general recount across the entire country involves over a hundred million ballots, the vast majority of which DO have a vote.

That is, the FL sample isnt representative of a national election.

how likely would a recount be that would change the result of the election, even at this tiny margin?

Very.
Please note that original margin of victory in the FL election, and how much it changed after recounts - Bush lead was cut by 1/2? 2/3?