What if Obama won popular vote and McCain electorate?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I was just thinking, with the nature of the election it's entirely possible that we could have a repeat of 2000 only this time I think that the margin would be even greater in the democrats favor. What would happen if Obama won the election by a decent margin (~5 mil or greater)? Would people actually stand up and say that this is a democracy and make him the president, regardless of the laws? Or would everyone just be complacent and let this country slide into another 8 years of shit?

[SCRawl]

I was just thinking, with the nature of the election it's entirely possible that we could have a repeat of 2000 only this time I think that the margin would be even greater in the democrats favor. What would happen if Obama won the election by a decent margin (~5 mil or greater)? Would people actually stand up and say that this is a democracy and make him the president, regardless of the laws? Or would everyone just be complacent and let this country slide into another 8 years of shit?

If that happened, yeah, President McCain would be taking the oath of office next January. It's a fucked up system, but you're stuck with it.

As an aside, is it really possible -- apart from creating ridiculous numbers that wouldn't reflect reality -- to have such a large margin of victory in the popular vote while still losing the EC?

[Anguirus]

I feel like if anything the opposite just might happen. Obama's doing much better at strategy, concentrating on states he has a good chance of flipping.

[Guardsman Bass]

I also think the reverse is more likely, but assuming the OP scenario happens, I think we would hear a lot of noise about changing the Electoral College, but ultimately nothing would be done (since getting an amendment passed is extremely difficult unless it's a "everybody already does it" type of thing, like 18-year-olds voting).

[Patrick Degan]

As an aside, is it really possible -- apart from creating ridiculous numbers that wouldn't reflect reality -- to have such a large margin of victory in the popular vote while still losing the EC?

Not a chance. There have been five instances in American history in which the ultimate winner of the election failed to even get a plurality of the popular vote and the race ended up being tossed into the House of Representatives in two of those cases (Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Andrew Jackson in 1824). The nearest example to the argument you are reaching for was in 1888 when Grover Cleveland lost in his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison by winning small states while losing the key electoral vote-rich states by thin margins (though Cleveland had the last laugh when he won the subsequent election over Harrison four years later). Cleveland wound up with .8% of the popular vote over Harrison. The most controversial election disputes were the 1876 selection of Rutherford B. Hayes by the special commission set up by Congress to decide the very disputed race in which three states posted rival slates of electors, and 2000 which was decided by the Supreme Court. In all cases, the popular vote was so close that only under those circumstances existed a condition where a man who'd lost the electorate still managed to win the White House electorally (or was otherwise installed in office). In every other case, in which you have a clear plurality or majority, it's certain that the popular vote winner will also be the electoral college winner.

[Guardsman Bass]

Mind you, they might be able to pull off an amendment to give electoral "weight" to the popular vote. Basically, the Bonus Plan, which in its original form would give 102 electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

I think 102 is too much; that would alone basically turn the presidential race into a de facto popular vote (and thus would probably never pass the amendment requirements). You might be able to get away with 50 Electoral Bonus Votes, though (1 for every state). That would be a major help to a candidate, while encouraging them to pull more voters from wherever they could get them (including in states currently ignored because of the "swing state" dynamic).

[CJvR]

Would people actually stand up and say that this is a democracy and make him the president, regardless of the laws? Or would everyone just be complacent and let this country slide into another 8 years of shit?

That IS the law, would you prefer Civilwar mk II. ( The Reps won the last one btw... )

[RedImperator]

If McCain wins the electoral vote, he wins the election, period, full stop. And that's the way it ought to be, unless you care to toss constitutional government out the window. It doesn't matter if the Constitution said the presidency will be determined by a pie-eating contest; the only legal way to become president is to meet the constitutional requirements to assume the office.

As for fixing the electoral college, a constitutional amendment is out because the small states will never go for it. There are other mechanisms, however. The Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how electors are distributed; winner take all isn't required, and in fact two states already allot electors by Congressional district, with the remaining two going to the overall statewide winner (this has never resulted in a split vote because the states in question, Nebraska and Maine, only have two congressional districts and the statewide winner has carried both every time, but I've read there's an outside shot Obama could carry one of Nebraska's this year). There's a movement now to take advantage of this loophole; several states have entered an interstate compact to allot all their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner. This compact will come into effect if and when enough states join that the national popular vote winner would automatically win at least 270 electoral votes.

Finally, there's always the possibility of a faithless elector. Electoral votes are actually cast by human beings called Electors, and there's no law that prevents an elector pledged to one candidate from switching her vote. If you did have the mathematically unlikely scenario described in the OP, a few electors may decide to change their votes to award the presidency to Obama anyway, on the grounds that it's clearly the national will that he be elected.

Now, all that said, the OP scenario, while not mathematically impossible, is so improbable as to be not worth considering. A 5% popular vote margin, in this electorate, could work out to 50 or more electoral votes. If Obama wins by 5% (not happening), he'll carry all the swing states, including the marginal ones like North Carolina and Indiana, and maybe swipe a few red states like the Dakotas or Montana.

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually small note there are 22 states with laws punishing faithless electors and Michigan state law actually voids the vote and replaces the elector if they are found to have voted against their pledge. So in the last case at least Michigan cannot switch its EVs to Obama regardless.

[Durandal]

Actually small note there are 22 states with laws punishing faithless electors and Michigan state law actually voids the vote and replaces the elector if they are found to have voted against their pledge. So in the last case at least Michigan cannot switch its EVs to Obama regardless.

As far as I know, the electors cast their votes anonymously, and the punishments against faithless electors are rarely enforced anyway.

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually small note there are 22 states with laws punishing faithless electors and Michigan state law actually voids the vote and replaces the elector if they are found to have voted against their pledge. So in the last case at least Michigan cannot switch its EVs to Obama regardless.

As far as I know, the electors cast their votes anonymously, and the punishments against faithless electors are rarely enforced anyway.

They are but since the electors have to mark their ballots in the state capitol (usually) the State reserves the right to oversee the process and Michigan specifically allows that:

Refusal or failure to vote for the candidates for president and vice-president appearing on the Michigan ballot of the political party which nominated the elector constitutes a resignation from the office of elector, his vote shall not be recorded and the remaining electors shall forthwith fill the vacancy.

So by act of legislature any faithless elector is automatically stripped of his or her vote.