From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:51:13 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.201644.24229@cbnews.cb.att.com> N. Richard
>Caldwell, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>>While I still don't think Perot can win the election outright,
>>continued good performances could make him more of a factor.  His
>>agenda might best be served if he could capture enough votes to >win
>enough large states to cause an electoral deadlock.  Perot could >then
>ask his electors to vote for whoever agrees adopt more of his >economic
>and government reform plans.


>If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are too
>many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.


No, what I think he is referring to is that after the general election
and before the next session of congress, the electors of the electoral
college meet to cast their votes.  The electors are not bound to follow
the will of the people who elected them.  Perot could tell the
elector who pledged to support him to vote instead for Bush or Clinton.
In that case, if his transfered votes plus the votes that the other 
candidate had create a majority, congress cannot do anything about it.
Also, when the house votes for President, each state votes as one
person, eg California=Ohio=New Jersy=Alaska.  Then, if the Republicans
get a slim majority in a majority of states, they could cause Bush to
win the Presidency again.


o
-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Keywords: 

In article <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.201644.24229@cbnews.cb.att.com> N. Richard
>Caldwell, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>>While I still don't think Perot can win the election outright,
>>continued good performances could make him more of a factor.  His
>>agenda might best be served if he could capture enough votes to >win
>enough large states to cause an electoral deadlock.  Perot could >then
>ask his electors to vote for whoever agrees adopt more of his >economic
>and government reform plans.


>If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are too
>many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.


No, what I think he is referring to is that after the general election
and before the next session of congress, the electors of the electoral
college meet to cast their votes.  The electors are not bound to follow
the will of the people who elected them.  Perot could tell the
elector who pledged to support him to vote instead for Bush or Clinton.
In that case, if his transfered votes plus the votes that the other 
candidate had create a majority, congress cannot do anything about it.
Also, when the house votes for President, each state votes as one
person, eg California=Ohio=New Jersy=Alaska.  Then, if the Republicans
get a slim majority in a majority of states, they could cause Bush to
win the Presidency again.


o
-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc