Election Day 2012

[Tora]

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

*chants* 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! *chants*

[TheLionPrince]

What I would really like to see is this: When you vote for the president, your vote determines who goes to the electoral college to actually vote for the president (I think each state gets 2 reps, it might be 1, I don't remember). Now get this:

The electoral college representative can vote for the other nominee that they were told to vote for, if they believe it will help the U.S.

And it's been done before, too.

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

Actually, that's very wrong. They are called electors and each state gets their number of them are determined by the number of House Representatives and Senators combined. For example, Louisiana gets 9 (7 in the House + 2 in the Senate). For a grand total of 538 in the US, with 270 needed to win.

In each state, the winner of the state popular vote gets the entire amount of electors (except Nebraska and Maine who give their electors to whoever wins the individual county)

And electors who vote against who they were suppose to vote for are called faithless electors. Various states have laws against this. And it's not going to happen. The last time it occurred was in 1968 when a racist North Carolina elector changed his vote for Nixon to George Wallace because he promised to keep segregation in place.

[Regulus]

What I would really like to see is this: When you vote for the president, your vote determines who goes to the electoral college to actually vote for the president (I think each state gets 2 reps, it might be 1, I don't remember). Now get this:

The electoral college representative can vote for the other nominee that they were told to vote for, if they believe it will help the U.S.

And it's been done before, too.

So I wouldn't mind a few Obama guys switch to Romney and let him win.

Actually, that's very wrong. They are called electors and each state gets their number of them are determined by the number of House Representatives and Senators combined. For example, Louisiana gets 9 (7 in the House + 2 in the Senate). For a grand total of 538 in the US, with 270 needed to win.

In each state, the winner of the state popular vote gets the entire amount of electors (except Nebraska and Maine who give their electors to whoever wins the individual county)

And electors who vote against who they were suppose to vote for are called faithless electors. Various states have laws against this. And it's not going to happen. The last time it occurred was in 1968 when a racist North Carolina elector changed his vote for Nixon to George Wallace because he promised to keep segregation in place.

I hardly ever agree with what you say, but I have to admit:

Pwn'd!

Gee, DGF, don't you know how your own government works?

[DGFone]

So I got the number wrong. Big deal. The important thing is that who you vote for might not even go towards the presidential vote - even if your state is one of the all-but-two that use a winner-takes all, the other candidate might get a vote or two.

Besides, how is it pwned? I readily admitted that I didn't know. I said that I am likely wrong, and guess what? I was wrong! PWN'D wil be if I told you all that I know for certain, which I did't.

[TheLionPrince]

I do believe that's a PWN . And lol, the idea that faithless electors could change the election is not likely at all. There are many other scenarios that could affect the election that much more likely. Here's four that NBC News came up with. A great read.

I believe #2 will happen

[DGFone]

If we're speaking about what can happen at worst case scenario, here is something really funny I heard that can happen:

Obama and Romney get too close to call. So the House is used to determine the president. The House can't reach an agreement, so the current vice-president takes over.

Biden '12 anyone?

[TheLionPrince]

If we're speaking about what can happen at worst case scenario, here is something really funny I heard that can happen:

Obama and Romney get too close to call. So the House is used to determine the president. The House can't reach an agreement, so the current vice-president takes over.

Biden '12 anyone?

Once again you are wrong
In the event of a 269-269 elector college tie, it's true that the House of Representatives determines the President, by giving each state one vote (no electors). But the Senate picks the Vice President. If it's a tie (50-50), the leader of the Senate breaks the tie. Quick government question: Who is the President of the Senate?

Spoiler: show

The Vice President
Did you get it right?

[DGFone]

Nope, I am not wrong, and here is why:

I only said what I heard on the radio. What you're telling me is that the radio was wrong. So hah! This is the great thing about quoting - even if the quote is wrong, you are not.

[Woeler]

Paul Ryan said: Rape is just another method of conception.

See that is one of the reasons I don't like them. Some are completely nuts. Someone with thoughts like that, vice president? I find these all women should be baby factories pro-life remarks highly disturbing. It's a disgrace, he's insulting half of the human race right there...

[DGFone]

Paul Ryan said: Rape is just another method of conception.

See that is one of the reasons I don't like them. Some are completely nuts. Someone with thoughts like that, vice president? I find these all women should be baby factories pro-life remarks highly disturbing. It's a disgrace, he's insulting half of the human race right there...

Told you you read the tabloids. Paul Ryan further went on to elaborate what he meant, and this is what he said: He doesn't support rape, and knows its evil, but if a child is created because of it, it's God's will, and therefore he is against aborting it.

I am against it, and I know that you are against it, but that is no way the same way as "I support rape because it creates more people."