Ron Paul/Bloomberg factor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080130/pl_rasmussen/thirdparty20080130

Well the pundits are already at work making predictions/guesses about how many votes Paul can pick up.

But they don't say what they base it on.

For example, money means a lot.

How much money are they predicting he can raise?

So far, they seem to have under-estimated his support. Especially financial support.

Likewise with Bloomberg.

So it could get interesting.

And I see no mention of Nader in the article, but he is making noises like he might run too.

If no one gets a majority of the electoral vote, it goes to the House of Representatives.

But it is not just a simple majority vote there.

Each state gets one vote.

So just because the Dems have a majority in the House does not mean the Dem would win under that scenario.

shermangeneral wrote:If no one gets a majority of the electoral vote, it goes to the House of Representatives.

But it is not just a simple majority vote there.

Each state gets one vote.

So just because the Dems have a majority in the House does not mean the Dem would win under that scenario.

It would if the politicians are as unprincipled as I think they are by voting for party over leadership quality.

Well Cato do you not think they should vote for the one who won the popular vote in their state?

shermangeneral wrote:If no one gets a majority of the electoral vote, it goes to the House of Representatives.

But it is not just a simple majority vote there.

Each state gets one vote.

So just because the Dems have a majority in the House does not mean the Dem would win under that scenario.

Neither Bloomburg nor Paul will pull enough electoral votes to send it to the HOR. They might pull enough votes to keep someone from winning, which has happened in the past, but they won't win any states, hence, no electoral votes.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Disputedelections.html

This is an interesting summary of some close presidential elections.

But like you say the third/fourth parties have to actually carry at least one state to make it happen.

Personally, I don't doubt someone with Bloomberg's money could buy a state like West Virginia and a few others. Enough to throw it to the House.

I don't know if Bloomberg could but say somebody like Huckabe with Bloomberg's money.

And with each state having an equal vote I bet a bunch of the western / southern states could be delivered if it went to the House too.

shermangeneral wrote:http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Disputedelections.html

This is an interesting summary of some close presidential elections.

But like you say the third/fourth parties have to actually carry at least one state to make it happen.

Personally, I don't doubt someone with Bloomberg's money could buy a state like West Virginia and a few others. Enough to throw it to the House.

I don't know if Bloomberg could but say somebody like Huckabe with Bloomberg's money.

And with each state having an equal vote I bet a bunch of the western / southern states could be delivered if it went to the House too.

Each state doesn't have an equal vote, they electoral votes based on population so even if someone would carry WV, losing those 5 electoral votes wouldn't automatically send it to the HOR.

I meant if it goes to the House each state gets one vote.

Regardless of size.

So it would seem to make more sense buying a small state like WV than a big state like Cal.

But I am just spouting off like everyone else on here.

My track record at predicting is not good.

I always predict my guy will win.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Cato do you not think they should vote for the one who won the popular vote in their state?

Nope! Read the 68th Federalist Paper. The framers ofthe US Constitution, in the 68th, Alexander Hamilton explained that the reason for the method of election of president the framers chose was to avoid a person being elected because he was popular. It was intended the a body of people , the electoral college or House of Representatives, decide who would be president. This was to hopeful put the best person in office, not just the most popular.