WI: Bush wins the EC but loses the popular vote again in 2004?

[CCK]

What if George W. Bush had once again lost the popular vote in 2004 (this time by a larger margin), but again won the electoral college by a slim margin? Would there be increased pressure on the electors to vote for Kerry? Would Bush not having a mandate from the American people after the 2004 election cause Bush to moderate (especially on foreign policy) or would he not change course in a second term? Would there be a stronger push to amend the constitution to get rid of the electoral college after 2004?


George W. Bush - 270
John Kerry - 268

 

[dw93]

I don't think there'd be increased pressure on electors to vote Kerry, at least not enough for them to do so anyway.

As for how Bush would govern in a second term in this scenario, not much differently I'm afraid (if at all). Having no mandate in 2000 didn't stop Bush from shoving his agenda down our throats (and that was pre 9/11 mind you), plus Bush barely had much of a mandate after the '04 election OTL (Obama won 2012 by a bigger margin than Bush in 2004), and again, Bush governed as though he had a mandate.

 

[Expat]

Yes, I recall "mandate" being the first thing from GOP mouths the next day, maybe even that night. They really, really wanted a majority of the vote and waved that questionable banner on high like it was the Oriflamme. This would be quite the internal setback, but spin doctors aren't called spin doctors for nothing, and I think they would've had little trouble messaging past this.

I do think the OP is onto something about increased support for moving away from the electoral college. Probably not in the form of a constitutional amendment, but more likely the NPV movement. It's entirely possible a enough states could sign on to kick in in 2008 after two straight occurrences and a Democratic wave in 2006. And if anything these circumstances would strengthen that wave.

 

[jahenders]

What if George W. Bush had once again lost the popular vote in 2004 (this time by a larger margin), but again won the electoral college by a slim margin? Would there be increased pressure on the electors to vote for Kerry? Would Bush not having a mandate from the American people after the 2004 election cause Bush to moderate (especially on foreign policy) or would he not change course in a second term? Would there be a stronger push to amend the constitution to get rid of the electoral college after 2004?

Probably wouldn't make much difference to a Bush presidency and it's probably not going to change any electors. The language re mandate (on both sides) may change somewhat, but it's largely an illusory concept -- the electoral college (EC) IS a mandate from the American people as much as Congress represents "the will of the people." The EC is the people's mandate filtered by state-oriented affects and it's how we've elected presidents for 200+ years.

That being said, the fact that the popular vote and EC outcome didn't match for 2 elections in a row would certainly increase the push for some change in the EC. However, I don't think it's likely that there would be enough momentum or breadth of support to actually make any substantive change. It would increase discussion about it, but that's likely all -- that would be a VERY difficult constitutional change to pass (and, IMNSHO, a bad one).

 

[Minty_Fresh]

If Kerry wins Ohio in this scenario but somehow loses New Hampshire, I'm not sure that I see him winning the popular vote. He won NH by 9K votes and lost Ohio by about 120K votes. Get Kerry over the hump in Ohio and somehow lose ground in New Hampshire, and I still don't see the popular vote changing, as Bush won it by over 3 Million.

But as for what this would mean, well, obviously there would be renewed pushes for reform of the EC. As for Bush himself, I think in his post victory appearances he would stress national unity a bit more than the ideas of Freedom Diplomacy, and maybe it might push him to further heresies against Conservatives, thereby sinking his approval rating very fast. Remember, Bush's approval rating was solid and normal until Social Security Reform alienated his fastest growing support group, seniors (Bush lost the senior vote in 2000 but won it big time in 2004), and his approval rating was passable until the right wing of the GOP freaked out over immigration reform in 2006 and started calling him "Jorge Bush". On foreign policy, Bush's second term was actually moderate in action but bombastic on rhetoric, as Syria and Iran's nuclear programs were not attacked despite the calls for the administration to do something about them, and the Russian attack on Georgia was not answered; this is most likely because of the ascendancy of the Realist faction in the State Department, many of which had ties to the Vulcans, rather than the Neoconservatives, who were somewhat sidelined leading up to the departure of Rumsfeld.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

There is no chance of the electoral college being eliminated or heavily modified as it would reduce the electoral importance dramatically of about 25 small states (at least).

 

[Indicus]

A congressional amendment would likely not occur, but maybe NPVIC will. If it gets passed by 2004, I can see Obama/Hillary/whoever win an even bigger landslide in 2008 because people in blue states will feel that their vote matters and the fear that the will of the people would be ignored would not exist.

 

[Indicus]

Also, fun fact - that would be the first time a Republican won without Ohio.

 

[Wallet]

Assuming Katrina and the collapse still happens, that means democrats will win in 2008 and 2012

That means the democrats would have won the popular vote 6 elections in a row. Not even FDR/Truman did that.

 

[David T]

There is no hope for Electoral College reform as long as the existing system seems to benefit one party. It is only when it seems to be equally likely to damage a popular vote winner of *either* party that there is some hope for the bipartisan consensus necessary to change the system. So if in 2004 Bush won the popular vote but narrowly lost the electoral vote (presumably for Ohio-specific reasons--e.g., the marriage referendum is ruled off the Ohio ballot, the scandals in Governor Taft's administration become known before Election Day, etc.) there might be some hope for abolishing or modifying the Electoral College because it had helped two different parties in 2000 and 2004. But if it helps the Republicans in two elections in a row, they will be dead-set against changing it, and the Democrats do not have the power to change it on their own.

 

[jahenders]

A congressional amendment would likely not occur, but maybe NPVIC will. If it gets passed by 2004, I can see Obama/Hillary/whoever win an even bigger landslide in 2008 because people in blue states will feel that their vote matters and the fear that the will of the people would be ignored would not exist.

I'm always shocked that NPVIC has as much support as it does. It's hard to imagine the people of a state deciding that their votes would be over-ruled if they'd gone against the majority. I was even more shocked to find out that it's in place in my state -- it occurred before my time here.

If it ever does become a reality, there will certainly be lawsuits the first time it's put in play.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I'm always shocked that NPVIC has as much support as it does. It's hard to imagine the people of a state deciding that their votes would be over-ruled if they'd gone against the majority. I was even more shocked to find out that it's in place in my state -- it occurred before my time here.

If it ever does become a reality, there will certainly be lawsuits the first time it's put in play.

Right.... So it's better to disenfranchise 49% of your state's electorate (as the current winner takes all system in 48 states demands in the case of a 51-49 vote) than to allocate according to the national will?

Such lawsuits would surely happen. But they ought to be thrown out of court.

 

[Indicus]

I'm always shocked that NPVIC has as much support as it does. It's hard to imagine the people of a state deciding that their votes would be over-ruled if they'd gone against the majority. I was even more shocked to find out that it's in place in my state -- it occurred before my time here.

If it ever does become a reality, there will certainly be lawsuits the first time it's put in play.

I'd much prefer if NPVIC got though. Then votes in Louisiana and Utah would actually matter rather than turnout in them being depressed due them being one-party states.

 

[jahenders]

I'd much prefer if NPVIC got though. Then votes in Louisiana and Utah would actually matter rather than turnout in them being depressed due them being one-party states.

While that's an issue, I think a MUCH better solution would be for all states to assign electoral votes (EVs) proportionally. So, if 20% of the votes in Utah go Dem, or 40% of the votes in CA go Rep; that's what the EVs would be.

I understand states' reluctance to move that way by themselves, but they could do it by way of a compact -- a better one than NPVIC.

 

[jahenders]

Right.... So it's better to disenfranchise 49% of your state's electorate (as the current winner takes all system in 48 states demands in the case of a 51-49 vote) than to allocate according to the national will?

Such lawsuits would surely happen. But they ought to be thrown out of court.

As I noted to fjihr, a much better solution would be for states to compact to all award electoral votes proportionally. It's the winner-takes-all awarding that effectively disenfranchises people, NOT the fact that state X doesn't match the popular vote.

Many such cases would get thrown out of court. However, some will likely have merit based on specific states' laws (and/or constitutions) on allocating electoral votes. For instance, if state X's law says, "we'll do elections and then the electors will be selected to reflect the will of the people of the great state of X," the lawsuit could have grounds for contention -- under NPVIC the wishes of the people of state X would be replaced by the wishes of the majority of the US electorate.

 

[Indicus]

As I noted to fjihr, a much better solution would be for states to compact to all award electoral votes proportionally. It's the winner-takes-all awarding that effectively disenfranchises people, NOT the fact that state X doesn't match the popular vote.

Many such cases would get thrown out of court. However, some will likely have merit based on specific states' laws (and/or constitutions) on allocating electoral votes. For instance, if state X's law says, "we'll do elections and then the electors will be selected to reflect the will of the people of the great state of X," the lawsuit could have grounds for contention -- under NPVIC the wishes of the people of state X would be replaced by the wishes of the majority of the US electorate.

And the people in state x are part of the US electorate.

One of the biggest problems of the Electoral College is that the turnout in each state is disregarded. If one state has a turnout of one percent and another with an equal population has a turnout of 99%, those two states are treated the same. That's extremely undemocratic as it gives the state with fewer voters as many EV as the state with everyone as a voter.

 

[jahenders]

And the people in state x are part of the US electorate.

One of the biggest problems of the Electoral College is that the turnout in each state is disregarded. If one state has a turnout of one percent and another with an equal population has a turnout of 99%, those two states are treated the same. That's extremely undemocratic as it gives the state with fewer voters as many EV as the state with everyone as a voter.

True, but if the law refers to the wishes of the STATE'S electorate, then it could be grounds for a lawsuit

It's not giving the states with the fewer voters as many EV as the sate with everyone as a voter -- the EVs are unchanged and are based on teh constitution. If the voters in state X choose to let one voter decide who gets their state's electors (by not voting), that's better (though foolish) than allowing the voters in some other state decide how to allocate the EVs of state X (which they would under NPVIC).

 

[Indicus]

True, but if the law refers to the wishes of the STATE'S electorate, then it could be grounds for a lawsuit

Once upon a time, states decided their electors by their state legislature. Guess what? There weren't any lawsuits!

It's not giving the states with the fewer voters as many EV as the sate with everyone as a voter -- the EVs are unchanged and are based on teh constitution. If the voters in state X choose to let one voter decide who gets their state's electors (by not voting), that's better (though foolish) than allowing the voters in some other state decide how to allocate the EVs of state X (which they would under NPVIC).

NPVIC would make the EC entirely ceremonial and make FPTP the de facto system. Sure, de jure it would be allowing the nation to decide a state's electors, but it would be tantamount to reform.

 

[Andrew T]

I vote "no change"

 

[David T]

I'm always shocked that NPVIC has as much support as it does. It's hard to imagine the people of a state deciding that their votes would be over-ruled if they'd gone against the majority.

Why is this shocking? Basically, they are saying "the risk of our vote being overruled if it goes against the national majority is worth it to see that our vote *isn't* overruled by other states if *we* support the candidate with the national popular-vote majority." Naturally, most of the states that adopted it were Democratic-controlled states because after 2000 it seemed the Republicans had an Electoral College advantage in case of a close national popular vote. Actually, that is by no means clear, but that's another matter...