The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Shouldn't the Ronulans be poised to seize Americans Elect?

    By jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:01am |

    A recent meander through vale of crazy,  where the really, really, wild things are, has acquainted me with the hope evinced by Ron Paul's peeps that somehow they will snatch the Repugnant party right from under Kid Repugnant himself, when they get to the big throw down in Tampa.

     

    Yeah, maybe.

     

    But given that they are quietly racking up ballot line access in all jurisdictions, (not a trivial issue as Gingrich and Santorum, eg, discovered in Virginia...), wouldn't a good Plan B include flooding the pitifully vulnerable party rolls of Americans Elect via internet assault?

     

    More broadly, what does Americans Elect portend for November?  Could we have a four-way race, with the axis of weevil and Americans Select drawing totally unpredictable cohorts from the Tweedles, Dee (Prez) and Dum(b)?

     

    And there could be such Electoral College mischief that the matter goes to the House, where each state gets one vote, as determined by their combined delegation.

     

    Oy.

    Comments

    For a sample of the House vote issues, Colorado today is 3-2 Republican, meaning that one seat lost to the pugs there in Novemvber is one 26/th of a winning presidential majority in January.

     

    Iowa is 3-2 Dem.  


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:57am

    You also have to remember that if it gets thrown to the House, they are under no obligation to pick from any of the survivors. They could just as easily pick from left, right or center field.


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:27am

    Shit, are you sure?  I did, in fact, not remember that, cuz I never knew it, and I taught Early National American History.

    Ooops.

     

    As a practical matter, I would think it would come down to the dems v. pugs, no?  So a restriction would be unnecessary.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:44am

    Well all the constitution actually says is that the House would choose the president if none of the candidates gets sufficient electoral votes. 

    This only happened once though. In the late 1800s. Pissed a lot of people off too.


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:50am

    wikipedia:

    In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Theoretically, the 26 least populous states could vote in bloc and elect the President. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:51am

    Here's a scary wrinkle--it used to be the Lame Duck House that voted!


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:47am

    yep. Talk about throwing a wrench into the works.


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:50am

    Recipe for a coup: If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of theTwentieth Amendment specifies that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House should select a President. If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House should select a President or the Senate should select a Vice President. None of these situations has ever occurred.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:54am

    I can shout, don't hear you.


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:50am

    sorry bout that, I seem to have stumbled onto some sort of font control for the whole page...G!a l'aide [fixed - d]


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:20am

    Actually this reminds me more of the 1912 election between Roosevelt , Wilson and Taft.  Where Roosevelt split the republicans down the middle running as a progressive.

    But there was also a rift over Bimetallism as well as the one over progressives vs conservatives.


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:01am

    Personally I don't see Ron Paul taking many votes from the left and I don't know anyone on the left that supports him.

    His supporters get routinely chased off of lefts blogs. Even pseudo leftist ones like this one.


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 9:27am

    me

    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:37pm

    But I have been made. mad.

    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:39pm

    Help me figure out what you're musing about here, jolly. You don't appear to fear that Ron Paul will somehow snatch the Republican nomination, but that a third party will coalesce around him, and this will somehow appeal to crazies like yourself on both the left and the right. Paul will win enough states to deny Obama an electoral-college majority, throwing the choice of president to Congress. Do I have that much right? You're smoking bad stuff, man. All but two states are winner-take-all. Their electoral votes will go to either Obama or Romney. Where Paul does do surprisingly well, he'll simply cut into Romney's support -- and that state will go to Obama. If he does win a single state,it will be one that normally goes Republican. Obama landslide. End of story.

    by acanuck on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 8:46pm

    If Romney were smarter or bolder than he is, he'd make Paul his running mate. Then things might get interesting. But Obama would still win.


    by acanuck on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 8:49pm

    And aside from Friedman, what are the names behind Americans Elect? Where is the money? The candidates? What's the ticket? Paul-Bloomberg? Bloomberg-Friedman? I thought we'd already disposed of this third-party nonsense.


    by acanuck on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 8:57pm

    well, no.

     

    I think the americans elect ticket will be huntsman and some democratic woman, per their rules.

     

    Some guy named Ackerman is walking point on   the money.

     

    I don't actually foresee any electoral votes other than for  the tweedles, altho intra state pluralities may be nudged.

     

    certainly no House Hi-jinks. 


    by jollyroger on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 9:09pm

    Huntsman is an appealing person, obviously smart. I like him. As a candidate, though, he struck out with Republicans of nearly all stripes. 

    I find it hard to imagine any prominent Democratic woman hooking up with him, ending her political career.

    My guess is Huntsman would draw more votes from Romney than from Obama, but that's just a guess. In that scenario, I think Obama still wins.

    Thanks for clarifying.


    by acanuck on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:44pm

    I agree. I don't see any Democrat Lady worth her salt on a ticket like that. Women have now figured out how to shake the tree of politics so their needs are taken serious and will vote according. This is a very broad sisterhood, much larger than Paul's army of pot heads. I think if Santorum gets to make a speech at Tampa, it will have a larger effect on the outcome then Paul's support.

    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 3:30am

    The moemoe ticket:

     

    Shuler(D)/Ayotte(R)


    by jollyroger on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 7:26am

     I actually thought Huntsman would do better with the Pugs than he did...you cannot go broke lo-balling the character and brainpower of the Repugnant primary voter...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 7:31am