From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: 92' Elections
Date: 16 Oct 1992 06:24:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester) writes:

>>Hold on - you're not being coherent here.  It is possible that no one
>>will get a majority of the popular vote, especially with Perot in the
>>race.  However, we're now looking at numbers like 48% Clinton,
>>34 Bush and 12 Perot, in which case Clinton would have a majority of the
>>popular vote (assuming that the undecided don't decide and therefore
>>don't vote).  In any event, it is possible that Clinton will take
>>a majority and not just a plurality of the popular vote.

>no you see, according to the wonderful laws in our country, even if
>Clinto does get the 270 needed electoral votesto win, he MUST get the
>popular vote majority..... There have been I believe 4 cases inthe 
>past Benjamin Harriosn, Richard Nixon, John Adams, and one other
>that did not receive the majority of the popular vote, but did receive
>the majority of the electoral vote, and they won when the Congress
>voted them into office.

Get the net!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you possibly be that mis-informed?

According to the Constitution, the _national_ popular vote doesn't mean
squat in the Presidential election!  The states determine electors in whatever
manner they choose (nowadays always by popular vote of that state's residents),
and those electors vote for the President.

If a majority of the electors do not vote for a single candidate for
President, the election for President is thrown into the House, where each
state gets one vote.  [The top three candidates (by electoral vote) are
considered in the House.]

If a majority of the electors do not vote for a single candidate for
VP, the election for VP is thrown into the Senate.  [The top two candidates
(by electoral vote) are considered in the Senate.]

In case you doubt my analysis here, the text of the 23rd amendment is
attached.  Of course, I neglected to mention what happens if the House
or Senate can't decide...

>I'm not so sure about this. I know he won;t win, butI will be willing to bet 
>that he might take a few small states......Mind you VP candidate makes
>not a president.Bush won in 1988 with Quayle as his VP, so as you
>can see VP's don't havemuch to do withthe swing vote.

Understood about VP candidates.  But Perot isn't gaining the momentum he
needs to get a plurality in any state.  Of course, the race has changed
dramatically before, so nothing any analyst says is set in stone.

But if you would be willing to bet that Perot might carry at least one
state, please tell us which one(s)!!!!!!!!!!!!

And even if Perot does take a small state or two, it won't matter!  Clinton
is way ahead in the electoral vote, so Perot doesn't even have a chance
of throwing things into the House/Senate if he does take a few states...

If you have suspicions to the contrary, please enumerate which states you think
Perot may take, and count the electoral votes!!!!!!!!

>> Face it, Bush has failed - why would he
>>possibly want to talk about the issues?

>i know...he just keep saying so and so about Clinton and his 
>anti-war demonstartions..like who cares.......

Apparently the people in Bush's staff do...


Ben McCall

-- 
Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
Students for Clinton/Gore: send Subject: line of "subscribe" to:
        clinton-students@cco.caltech.edu
Clinton FTP site: ftp.cco.caltech.edu, /pub/bjmccall/Clinton
Newsgroups: alt.overlords