Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Barack Obama Is One Step Closer To Being President

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the donkey-faithful-one-hundred-percent dept.

United States 601

At 3:00 Eastern time on Monday Dec. 15, 538 electors in state capitols across the US cast the votes that actually elected Barack Obama the 44th President. Obama received, unofficially, 365 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win). The exact total will not be official — or Obama officially elected — until Congress certifies the count of electoral votes in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2009. The Electoral College was established in its present form in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state — in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise, but no "faithless elector" has ever been charged with a crime. "On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. ... To date, faithless electors have never changed the otherwise expected outcome of the election."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131415)

And the point of this story is...?

Re:And? (4, Informative)

Davemania (580154) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131463)

The point is that the fabric of US democracy lies on the will of these electors. and Obama is one less procedure away from being president.

Re:And? (-1, Redundant)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131535)

I thought the point was the kdawson is a Democratic party hack and totally in the tank for Obama.

I bet his leg is tingling.

Re:And? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131645)

Personally, I suspect pudge is behind this one, since he wrote a rant [slashdot.org] last night about how nobody at all covered this, and how the news companies that did screwed up by calling it "official".

Suddenly, slashdot has an article about the "unofficial" electoral college results. What a coincidence?

Re:And? (0, Troll)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131567)

lol, next story to justify. obama sneezes at 13:26 (in particular you've got to cover why its news for nerds)

Re:And? (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131581)

obama sneezes at

gooda love the google ads here

Bird Flu Virus Protection
Boost your immune system & help protect yourself from the Bird Flu

Re:And? (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131679)

Scientists who analyzed the mucus from the tissue President-Elect Obama used during the sneeze have determined that Obama is suffering from a rare strain of an interspecies-infecting influenza virus. The fate of the human race remains undetermined.

Re:And? (2, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131907)

Shut...down...EVERYTHING.

Re:And? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131655)

And the point of this story is...?

Yesterday was a sad day for the republic.

Re:And? (1)

sabs (255763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131757)

Yes, because the last 8 years have been a glorious crowning acheivement for the Republic.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131867)

Yes, because the last 8 years have been a glorious crowning acheivement for the Republic.

The last 8 years have led to the destruction of the republic. The "new" regime will simply continue that while throughly trashing the economy (hint: excessive borrowing and printing can't fix a problem caused by excessive borrowing and printing).

It's a sad day because those that could restore our country to greatness were not voted in (Paul, Baldwin, Barr).

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26132039)

Chuck Baldwin? Are you serious? Christian theocracy FTW!

And this is news because? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131419)

Slow news day?

Re:And this is news because? (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131507)

This is news for nerds because the difference between the way things are expected to work and the way they are actually implemented is a nerd interest.

The fact that this something that happens regularly every four years doesn't mean it isn't news. If that were the case, then we would not see stories with titles like "The worst/best/most/least ____ of 2008" in the upcoming weeks.

Re:And this is news because? (5, Funny)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131627)

I don't agree with you. You should be modded down.

Re:And this is news because? (5, Interesting)

TroyM (956558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131761)

I remember during the 2000 election fiasco, I was watching some news call in show. A woman said that Gore had an unfair advantage, because he was a career politician and probably knew about this electoral college stuff, while she was sure Bush didn't. She apparently had never heard of it.

It doesn't hurt to remind people of the bizarre way that the US Presidential election works.

News? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131427)

How is this newsworthy? "United States electoral process proceeds as planned! In other news, sun rises. Film at 11."

Re:News? (-1, Flamebait)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131629)

Yeah, stop paying attention people, nothing to see here.

BTW Does anyone know the names and addresses of the 538 electors? And some place I could get hold of 538 dentist's chairs?

McCain / Palin 2008

Re:News? (1)

Restil (31903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131677)

You would only need 97.

-Restil

Batten down the hatches (-1, Flamebait)

lee n. field (750817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131431)

here come the 0bamabots.

So.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131435)

What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?

Re:So.. (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131489)

What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?

Nope, but Sarah Palin does, from her helicopter. She can see the Congress from up there. And shoot any wolves that come near. And by wolves I mean electors.

Judging by some red-neck rants on Christian blogs (0, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131503)

What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?

Judging by some red-neck rants on Christian blogs he is not the only person who might have a shot at the president elect.

Re:Judging by some red-neck rants on Christian blo (0, Flamebait)

drunkenoafoffofb3ta (1262668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131831)

Ah, rednecks. All of those Sunday sermons they attended, for all of those years. "Turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbour" etc. And yet they want to shoot a black president. How Christian of them. If, of course, by "Christian", you mean "moron-tastic". Actually, try that substitution in other situations too. IT works well.

Re:So.. (-1, Troll)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131583)

What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?

I'd love to see that. Not because I think McCain is such a great candidate, but just to see the reaction of the Democrats. Kodak moment, anyone?

And it doesn't really matter anyway who won or will be elected by the College, considering how Obama's change and freshness brings us people like Clinton, Kerry, Gore and all those other "new" faces.

Why on Slashdot? (1, Troll)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131439)

Why is this piece of tripe on Slashdot? You can read this stuff all you want on CNN.com or any other "news" channel. I thought Slashdot was "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."

This doesn't matter.

Re:Why on Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

jdunn14 (455930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131525)

The article is crap, but you got the reasons reversed. It definitely matters, but it's not news. The leader of one of the largest and most influential countries in the world is being replaced, and that matters. If something strange had happened it would be news, as it is we're just seeing the electoral system do the same thing it always does.

Advertisements (5, Insightful)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131613)

You're both wrong.

The real reason:

By the end of the day, you'll see hundreds of posts to this thread. Many rants about Bush. Comments about the evangelical Christians and their agenda. Comments about bailouts. Etc...

This will draw many many eyeballs to advertisements and clicks. The end of the quarter is coming up and they need try to make the numbers. Even then, I'm sure there's going to be layoffs at Slashdot next year, too. Then, we'll really see the dupes!

Re:Advertisements (1)

mrdogi (82975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131959)

Wait, advertisements?

Re:Why on Slashdot? (3, Interesting)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131623)

Do we see posts on who is the new PM of Iraq, the new Pope is, or howabout what Obama had for breakfast?

That's a negative little ducky.

Unless there is an upset or irrational event on such an "important" event, the mechanics of the US political infrastructure do not matter.

Re:Why on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131847)

I'm amazed you risked taking your head out of the sand long enough to type that reply.

Re:Why on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26132037)

Talkin about yoself again are ya?

Pope/PM etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131851)

Isn't that an EXACT Cut and Paste job trotted out by you and several other slashdot posters EVERY TIME an Obama story is raised here?

And, yes, the Pope DID get a lot of news even on slashdot.

And this story, such as it is, is not about Obama's breakfast repast.

Re:Pope/PM etc (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131975)

I don't recall even posting on anything related to Obama. This isn't about Obama, it's about /.

Where do the editors lean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131697)

Get real, there is more slant here than on Digg at times. At least on Digg its mostly the users.

Normally I have politics unchecked but somehow my settings got forked.

Re:Where do the editors lean? (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26132001)

Yeah, but on Digg 99% of the comments consist of something along the lines of "LOL PWNED!" That's not really the audience of users I trust to decide what is important and what isn't.

The most popular story on Digg right now isn't even a story. It's some asshole's comic, entitled "Stupid TV! Be more helpful!"

Re:Why on Slashdot? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131879)

They're having to expand their news coverage due to a sudden influx of bored slashdotters who've been laid off.

Closer than you think (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131441)

A while ago, while browsing around the library downtown [goatse.fr] , I had to take the piss.

Re:Closer than you think (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131473)

I'm REALLY tempted to click that, just for old time's sake.

Also, it'd probably be more interesting/newsworthy than the article.

So all that is left. (0, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131469)

So all is left is to clear up the right wing conspiracy theories about Oboma's birth origin. (However McCain was born in Panama so I am not sure who would be left...)

Re:So all that is left. (2, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131517)

Ron Paul FTW! All kidding aside, it doesn't matter if Obama's mother was a British citizen or McCain was born in Panama. You're a natural born citizen if A) you're born on U.S. soil (Obama was born in Hawaii), or if you're born to an American citizen (McCain's parents were both US Citizens), so it was a moot point.

Re:So all that is left. (-1, Troll)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131609)

(1) Panama was part of the U.S. at the time, so McCain *is* natural born on U.S. soil.

(2) Obama may have been born in Southeast Asia, and therefore not a natural born citizen.

Re:So all that is left. (2, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131683)

(2) Obama may have been born in Southeast Asia, and therefore not a natural born citizen.

Everything I have seen indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii. Got anything to back up your claim?

Re:So all that is left. (0, Troll)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131779)

The "controversy" was that there are several people, including his own grandmother, who claim he was born in Mombassa, Kenya.

That being the case, and his mother being a minor at the time, he would not be a US citizen at all.

Taking the tinfoil off, and assuming he was indeed born in HI, then there's the issue of him enrolling in a school in Indonesia, at a time when Indonesian citizenship was required to do so, and no dual citizenship was available. To become an Indonesian citizen, he (his mother, actually) would have to renounce his US citizenship. Coming back to the US, he would be required to undergo naturalization, and would no longer be considered "natural born".

Either of these is a hell of a stretch, but it is interesting that he has defended himself so vigorously from proving them false. He has never presented a birth certificate, to this day.*

*A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT a birth certificate. It does not establish residency.

Re:So all that is left. (4, Informative)

dtolman (688781) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131921)

1) Technically all the questions to those in Kenya about Barrack Obama, have neglected to specify Jr or Sr. Since him and his father share an identical name, its impossible to know which one they are talking about.

2) Minors can not give up their citizenship. And parents can't give up their minor's citizenship.

Re:So all that is left. (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131763)

Incorrect. Barack Hussein Obama was, indeed, born in Hawaii 2 years after Hawaii achieved statehood. Read all about it on Snopes. [google.com] Say what you will, but Barb and Dave are usually pretty good about scoping out all the facts.

Re:So all that is left. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131729)

Furthering your point, McCain was born on a US Navy base. US Military bases are considered sovereign soil, the same as being born in one of the 50 states.

Re:So all that is left. (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131571)

By the way, did you hear that some of the presidents weren't even born in the USA?! That's scandalous! I hope Lou Dobbs is on the case.

Re:So all that is left. (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131791)

Aside from the Founders, name one.

When did "some of the presidents" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131881)

Not include the first few presidents of the USA?

Either they were presidents or not.

Roger MacBride/Tonie Nathan (4, Interesting)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131475)

Lots was made about Sarah Palin being on the Republican ticket. In 1972, Roger MacBride--a faithless Republican elector from Virginia--decided that he could not in good conscience vote for Nixon. He cast his vote for John Hospers & Tonie Nathan on the Libertarian ticket, marking the first time a woman had ever received an electoral vote.

Re:Roger MacBride/Tonie Nathan (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131573)

he could not in good conscience vote for Nixon.

That's why I've never like the term "faithless" elector. The way the electoral college is supposed to work, is that we should know who our electors are, and they should be people we trust to make the best choice they can.

-jcr

for all the founding fathers did right (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131491)

they still had a little aristocratic doubt in the back of their minds, and put this ridiculous electoral college system in place. an arostocratic hedge. a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up

al gore should have rightfully been president of the united states in 2000, and for all that you can accuse al gore of potentially screwing up (what, too much environmental regulation?), there's nothing he could have done to the usa as bad as what gw bush did. our economy, our international image, our own faith in our govt to protect our freedoms, torture, preemptive war, etc

of course, i understand in reality the chance of getting rid of the ec is incredibly difficult, its too entrenched. but maybe at least we can, on a state by state basis, convince the states that ec votes should be awarded proportional to popular vote, like maine and nebraska do now (i think). so texas will suddenly cough up a bunch of democratic votes, but so will new york suddenly cough up some republican votes. isn't it necessary that we star thinking less partisan? is it fair to people in austin that texas is viewed as a republican block? is it fair to people in upstate new york that new york is viewed as a democratic block? don't these people's voices deserve equal share in the vote for president?

of course, if texas passed such a law, but not new york, or new york passed such a law, but not texas, this obviously skews results for republicans or democrats. in which case, you'd still need to make sure the key swing states that traditionally, now, deliver breadbaskets of electoral votes for one party or another, all start delivering proportionally on the same presidential election, so it would have ot happen in one 4 year span

incredibly difficult still, but doable. and do we another gw bush presidency to convince you it needs to be done?

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (3, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131555)

Actually, that's probably the best way to do it, is have the electoral college be proportional to within its own state. I've never been a fan of the straight popular vote for President - it really takes away from the rural states and some of their voice in government, and places without major population center needs to have its voice heard. Yeah, it may mean their vote "counts more," but direct democracy, particularly when dealing with such a large population who is getting more and more uneducated about politics, and who is apt to fall for some of the semi-demogoguery from both sides (Obama's campaign to the masses was woefully short on substance, and about all anyone on the street was able to say was "change.")

Frankly, what I would like to see, and what has even LESS chance to get set in than getting rid of the electoral college, is a test that must be taken when one votes that has basic principles of civics.

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131687)

Frankly, what I would like to see, and what has even LESS chance to get set in than getting rid of the electoral college, is a test that must be taken when one votes that has basic principles of civics.

As has been pointed out before, this allows some of the most 'evil' people in the country with the morals of a dung-beetle to vote, while *excluding* the good and saint-like on the grounds that the former scored a couple of points better on a multiple choice test. Surely voting for president should ideally be a moral choice about who is the best/most trustworthy leader? And this requires virtually no civics knowledge at all, just good character judgement.

no, wrong (-1, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131705)

rural voters don't deserve to have more rights than urban voters, which is exactly what you are asking for, no matter how you frame it, and it is still wrong. any, ANY disproportionate influence leads to injustice and abuse of power

for example: guns. i grew up rural, and i live urban now. i shot shotguns in the swamp behind the house with my granddaddy, a mile from our nearest neighbor, at gamebird and targets. i understand the need for your own form of protection when the police are half an hour away

now, living in an urban environment, i see the other side of guns. guns are not only tools of virtue. they are frequently tools of mayhem. guns are not always in the hands of those who intend good, nor is there some magic wand which can tell who should or should not have a gun. such that in an urban environment, it makes sense to let the police be armed, and everyone else to have suppressed gun ownership. it simply cuts down on needless death

and, as a side issue: no, arming only the police is not a formula for fascism. in fact, it is those who appeal to visceral force, who appeal to the gun, who are more likely fodder for embryonic fascist movements, not the police. really, read your history. random guys in the country is not a protection from fascism, it is the soil in which fascism grows

back to the larger point: gon control is the approach to guns as it exists in europe. europe is mostly urban (and yet still grapples with the disproportionate power their rural farmers still wield, to the detriment of free trade agreements). meanwhile, the usa has been mostly rural throughout its history, but is shifting to majority urban in recent years. therefore, it is natural that attitudes towards guns will shift from a rural attitude to an urban attitude, and we will experience a watershed moment in the coming decades against gun ownership

and it is simply a rural versus urban dynamic. currently, there are people dying in urban centers for the sake of a rural legal approach to gun ownership. in the future, there will be people dying in rural areas for the sake of an urban approach to gun ownership. its the majority deciding the legal approach. and either rural, or urban folk, suffer for the benefit of the other. for those of you want to keep your guns, urban blood is on your hands. for those of you who wish to curtail guns, rural blood will be on your hands. simple as that really

personally it would be ideal if you could own a gun in the country, but not in the city. but this is nearly impossible to enforce

again, let me get this absolutely clear to you: for the sake of the current (flawed) interpretation of the second amendment, there are needless deaths every day in urban settings. right now, for the disproportionate influence of rural people, urban people die

the second amendment referred to posses in the countryside against native americans and british and french colonial forces. its completely taken out of historical context in reference to modern gun ownership needs, really. i don't know why the second amendment is so depended upon as a some sort of supporter of the rural right to have guns. are you the minutemen? the second amendment does not support the current context in which gun ownership is used

i look forward to the day when a few rural folks die for having their gun rights curtailed, rather then the status quo we have today, in which a lot of urban folks die for the sake of irresponsible gun ownership

gun rights is a hardcore rural versus urban dynamic, with lots of needless death in the balance

Re:no, wrong (2, Interesting)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131929)

You take the first step, and then maybe I'll give up my gun in an urban environment. Post a sign on your apartment window that says "I believe in gun control. There are no firearms in this residence." The availability of firearms is a general, not specific deterrent. However if you let folks know of your views of how the world should be, then perhaps we can see how well it works out for you.

Good luck.

p.s. You might also help your cause by learning when to use capital letters. It really helps the reader determine when your next sentence begins, and also conveys a sense of pride in authorship.

do you have a gun in every room of your house? (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26132051)

no? what's wrong with you?

then you need to put a sign on every door in your house saying "gun in here" or "gun not in here" to guide criminals, for being the inadequately enthusiastic gun owner you profess to be

have i successfully dismantled your bullshit propaganda about the a sign on my window yet?

think of an urban environment as a large house. on the street corners, are police. they are the guns that i need to keep me safe from crime. the gun is in safe, responsible, vigilant (and awake) hands. that it is in his hands, and not in my apartment, is the same as your gun being in your bedroom, but not your kitchen

see how that works?

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131579)

they still had a little aristocratic doubt in the back of their minds, and put this ridiculous electoral college system in place. an arostocratic hedge. a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up

Well, after 2004, some of us have a lot of doubt about democracy.

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131615)

after 2004, some of us have a lot of doubt about democracy

What took you so long?

-jcr

name a superior alternative (0, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131621)

and your doubt will be fruitful and hav a point

otherwise, you still need to believe in democracy

churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (5, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131671)

>>>a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up

(1) That's because they recalled that a previous Democracy in Athens had killed one of mankind's greatest thinkers, Socrates, simply because they didn't like him. They did not want the right to life to be taken-away by a simple 50% +1 vote.

(2) It's no more fucked-up then how the European Union operates - ya know, a Union of States where States elect ministers to the Council, not the people. You need to understand history, because in 1786 we were not a single nation - we were 13 indepentent nations coming together as an EU-type organization. Hence an election organized by States, not people.

(3) Hence we a Republic of 50 States, where LAW reigns and protects the individual, not a democracy where the majority squashes the individual underfoot.

dude, you're spastically way off target (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131751)

we're talking about the presidential vote, the electoral college. hello?

we're not talking about execution by vote. this isn't a science fiction convention

can you keep your emotional propaganda in your pants please?

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131931)

You really don't want to hold the EU up as any standard to aim for. It's reprehensible that the union has never managed to produce a set of accounts that the accountants were willing to sign off as accurate.

Many people here would happily hang the ministers and start afresh - and I'm a PRO-europe person!

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (1)

paintswithcolour (929954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131999)

(1) That's because they recalled that a previous Democracy in Athens had killed one of mankind's greatest thinkers, Socrates, simply because they didn't like him.

That's a tad oversimplifying things. Plato stood strongly against democracy, and (although we don't know) it's not unreasonable to suggest that Socrates did too. Plato's Socrates may have been killed because "they didn`t like him", but the real Socrates? He may very well of been the man that brought tyranny to the city.

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (4, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131719)

By what definition should Al Gore have "rightfully" been President after the 2000 election? If the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in, the Florida legislature would have appointed electors to represent Florida that would have voted for George W. Bush. If those electors were not seated, the election would have gone to Congress to be decided. Congress would have chosen George W. Bush.
As for the "popular vote", California alone chose not to count more absentee ballots than the difference in the reported national vote totals between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The reason that California (and many other states) did not count all of the absentee ballots was because for California, the remaining absentee ballots were fewer than the difference in the vote total for California.

the popular vote went to al gore (1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131835)

i'm glad you can spin scenarios where this is not true. and? supposition is not fact

the official record is al gore won the popular vote. please, show us contingencies and if-then conditions where this is not true. it doesn't mean anything

meanwhile, we also have the factual record of the abyssmal gw bush administration. can you tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq?

we need to remove the electoral college, to prevent another a gw bush: gw bush was not the democratic will of the american people, according to factual record (not your suppositions). yet he took the white house, and we paid dearly for this idiotic anachronistic tweak on our popular will called the ec

Re:the popular vote went to al gore (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131995)

the official record is al gore won the popular vote. please, show us contingencies and if-then conditions where this is not true. it doesn't mean anything

There is no official record of the popular vote, as the popular vote didn't mean anything and thus wasn't officially counted. Your suppositions of what the popular vote might have been (had it been counted) don't mean anything.

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (4, Informative)

sepluv (641107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131759)

You do realise that the main reasons for adopting an electoral college system were practical? Specifically, that communicating the results, let alone running a single co-ordinated election, took a very long time (with only horses), and that the union was newly formed so the states still didn't trust each other or the federal goverment?

no, i did not (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131891)

but it is an excellent point, and i thank you for it

yet another reason to get rid of the ec: its as outdated anachronism

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131855)

A number of states have introduced laws to split electoral votes according to the national popular vote, with the laws only taking effect once such laws have been passed in enough states to constitute a majority of the electoral college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact [wikipedia.org]

The main problem with the concept of a national popular vote is what happens when you end up with an extremely close result. With the electoral college, you only need to worry about close states. There's no point asking for a recount in a state which split 70-30. But with a national popular vote, a vote is a vote, and a close result could see recounts and litigation in all 50 states.

Re:for all the founding fathers did right (1, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131903)

they still had a little aristocratic doubt in the back of their minds, and put this ridiculous electoral college system in place. an arostocratic hedge. a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up

al gore should have rightfully been president of the united states in 2000,

Okay. But it's important to note that Bill Clinton didn't get an absolute majority of the popular vote either. In fact, Barack Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win a majority of the popular vote.

So by your logic, Clinton shouldn't have president either. Neither should have JFK, Nixon or Truman.

My Favorite kdawson Tags (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131509)

  • kdawsonfud
  • kdawson {lame }is {lame}a {lame}fucking {lame} idiot
  • kdawsonisamoron
  • kdawsonisanidiot
  • kdawsonsucks
  • kdawsontroll

Okay kids - let's add some more!

And this is news...why? (2, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131527)

Seriously, could we get any more fawning over President-elect Obama? I don't recall Slashdot carrying this level of minutiae for either of the prior Bush terms.

This is news if it goes badly (2, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131541)

There are instances in history where the electoral college went against the will of the people. This would be news in that instance. Otherwise it's just business as usual.

Re:This is news if it goes badly (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131587)

Maybe, but it was never against the will of the states. Clinton wasn't elected with the will of the people, either - he never got 50%+1.

So much for "Hope and Change!" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131547)

Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.

Woo hoo.

Can't wait to see how when we're having problems two years from now the Obamabots figure out ways to blame McChimpyHallibushHitlerCheney anyway.

Get this: Obama didn't inherit any problems. He turned off online contribution credit card validation and recording, sleazed his way to $300 million in contributions, and BOUGHT EVERY DAMN PROBLEM HE WILL FACE

Re:So much for "Hope and Change!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131769)

All fucking talking points of idiots. Just because a web form did not have a direct connection to validation services does not mean that no service was run before everything was actually processed, and to have a damned biased "reporter" try to make something of it was shameful, especially for blogs where it should be the tech savy who reign.

Re:So much for "Hope and Change!" (1)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131809)

u mad?

Re:So much for "Hope and Change!" (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26132057)

Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.

Why not? That's what I'd do, if I wanted to get anything done. The last president to fill most of his staff with Washington outsiders was Jimmy Carter; while he is underrated as a President, this decision cost him a lot of effectiveness. The last major initiative headed by a Washington outsider was the Clinton's health plan. Not knowing how national politics worked wasn't exactly an asset.

Ronald Reagan was, in terms of getting his policy initiatives acted upon, one of the most successful presidents in modern history. His administration was staffed largely by Nixon admiinstration veterans, former congressmen, and scions of old political families. The few outsiders in his administration were either at departments he wanted to fail (Education). The only exception was Attorney General, a position he preferred to fill with old, loyal California cronies.

The point was... (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131593)

Maybe bush will declare martial law, and then when this space station breaks away from earth, and destroys our whole fleet by employing cybernetically altered telepaths, he'll turn the earth's defense grid against the earth, and it will be up to Obama to save us all by destroying all the platforms before they can create a scorched earth scenario... ...or... Maybe he'll just be another elected official, like all the previous presidents, and isn't really an evil puppet as some people have tried to fantasize... Wouldn't it be something if bush was just a normal guy? --Ray

Re:The point was... (1)

bdbolton (830677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131681)

Bush is a normal person. He's corrupt, selfish and only helps out his friends -- just like most people.</cynical>

Re:The point was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131947)

</cynical>

You can stop? good for you.

Re:The point was... (1)

Rub1cnt (1159069) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131877)

Time to buy stock in Reynolds and a lifetime supply of tinfoil. I'm selling tinfoil hats, $50.00 apeice, today only.

Vote doesn't count (0)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131619)

So, what you're saying is that this is just 1 more way that my vote doesn't count?

Listen, I understand the whole 'idiots can't be trusted to vote' thing, but the system is just one step short of only letting the rich vote. (I don't actually agree with the idiots thing, but I understand it.)

Hypothetical, what if a terrorist got the pair (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131667)

What is the Constitutional process if a terrorist took out Obama and Biden before the inauguration?

Would there have to be a special election?
Would Bush/Cheney stay in office until ....?

The Speaker becomes President only a sitting President and VP are taken out?

Is this documented anywhere?

BTW, my question in no way hopes that such an event occur.

Re:Hypothetical, what if a terrorist got the pair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131777)

If either had died before the electoral votes were cast, then they would have had to vote for someone else (it's possible, for instance, that they could have picked Hillary as a replacement). After they are elected then if the president-elect dies, the vice-president-elect becomes the president-elect. I am not sure what happens if the vice-president-elect dies.

Re:Hypothetical, what if a terrorist got the pair (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131819)

If it is before inauguration, Congress would choose the next President. It would likely be Hillary in that case, possibly with a dose of Pelosi.

Re:Hypothetical, what if a terrorist got the pair (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131871)

Congress would (s)elect a President in that case. (That would also happen in the case of an electorial tie).

Re:Hypothetical, what if a terrorist got the pair (2, Insightful)

Rub1cnt (1159069) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131899)

believe me, if you don't like the present situation, remember, it gets worse as you go up the chain of replacements. You've got a person who can strategically do the least harm atm, let's keep it that way..

Capitals not Capitols (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131747)

The Capital is the city, Capitol is the actual building. They were not all in their Capitol buildings. It should say Capitals, since they were in their capital city.

Obama economic advisers meet friday... (0, Offtopic)

kingpahat (1432921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131801)

Obama planned his first public appearance since his presidential victory for Friday -- a meeting with economic advisers to discuss the nation's financial woes that Americans listed as their top concern on Election Day. Obama plans to talk to the news media Friday afternoon following the meeting, aides said. He and his wife, Michelle, will visit the White House on Monday at President Bush's invitation, aides said. http://kingpahat.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

A criminal offense? (1)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131823)

Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state -- in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise

Someone please explain that sentence to me, because to me it sounds like: "In the US, driving you car on the sidewalks is allowed -- in fact you'll go to jail in most states if you do so."

Re:A criminal offense? (1)

Rub1cnt (1159069) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131927)

"They were stopping everyone driving on that particular stretch of sidewalk...."

Re:A criminal offense? (1)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26132045)

Thank you for trying, but now I'm even more confused. :)

Wrong date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26131843)

Like most of the news articles on this, the date for counting the votes is wrong. It is January 8 - see House Joint Resolution 100.

I, for one, welcome our first foreign-born... (0, Troll)

meburke (736645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131883)

Muslim Overlord.

Electors don't always vote accordingly (1)

Sethus (609631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131935)

Actually the 'no faithless elector' bit is not true. Back in the 1820's Monroe was elected during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings [wikipedia.org] Era of Good Feelings by winning every state. William Plumer voted the sole Electoral Vote, out of New Hampshire, even though his state went Monroe's way.

I was taught that it was because no one wanted to beat Washington's electoral record, but it is far more likely that Plumer simply did not like Monroe or his policies.

I always thought this would be gone.. (0)

Pfhreakaz0id (82141) | more than 5 years ago | (#26131945)

as soon as we had a president "elected" who didn't actually win the popular vote.

Guess not.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?