From The Daily News archives: November 1st.
Bush Set to Fight
An Electoral College Loss
They're not only thinking
the unthinkable, they're
planning for it.
Quietly, some of George W. Bush's
advisers are preparing for the ultimate
"what if" scenario: What happens if Bush
wins the popular vote for President, but
loses the White House because Al Gore's
won the majority of electoral votes?
"Then we win," says a Gore aide. "You play
by the rules in force at the time. If the
nation were really outraged by the
possibility, then the system would have
been changed long ago. The history is
clear."
Yes it is, and it's fascinating. Twice
before, Presidents have been elected
after losing the popular vote. In 1876, New
York Gov. Samuel Tilden won the popular
vote (51% to 48%) but lost the presidency
to Rutherford Hayes, who won by a single
electoral vote. Twelve years later, in 1888,
Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by a
single percentage point, but lost his
reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison by 65
electoral votes.
The same thing almost happened in 1976
when Jimmy Carter topped Gerald Ford by
about 1.7 million votes. Back then, a switch
of about 5,500 votes in Ohio and 6,500
votes in Mississippi would have given
those states to Ford, enough for an
Electoral College victory. But because it
didn't happen, the upset over its having
almost happened faded rapidly.
Why do we even have the Electoral
College? Simply put, the Founding Fathers
didn't imagine the emergence of national
candidates when they wrote the
Constitution, and, in any event, they didn't
trust the people to elect the President
directly.
A lot has changed since then, including the
anachronistic view that the majority
should be feared. But the Electoral College
remains.
So what if Gore wins such crucial
battleground states as Florida, Michigan
and Pennsylvania and thus captures the
magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins
the overall nationwide popular vote?
"The one thing we don't do is roll over,"
says a Bush aide. "We fight."
How? The core of the emerging Bush
strategy assumes a popular uprising,
stoked by the Bushies themselves, of
course.
In league with the campaign — which is
preparing talking points about the
Electoral College's essential unfairness —
a massive talk-radio operation would be
encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a
Bush aide, "and I think you can count on
the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even
papers that supported Gore might turn
against him because the will of the people
will have been thwarted."
Local business leaders will be urged to
lobby their customers, the clergy will be
asked to speak up for the popular will and
Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats
as possible to scream as loud as they can.
"You think 'Democrats for Democracy'
would be a catchy term for them?" asks a
Bush adviser.
The universe of people who would be
targeted by this insurrection is small —
the 538 currently anonymous folks called
electors, people chosen by the campaigns
and their state party organizations as a
reward for their service over the years.
If you bother to read the small print when
you're in the booth, you'll notice that when
you vote for President you're really
selecting presidential electors who favor
one candidate or the other.
Generally, these electors are not legally
bound to support the person they're
supposedly pledged to when they gather in
the various state capitals to cast their
ballots on Dec. 18. The rules vary from
state to state, but enough of the electors
could theoretically switch to Bush if they
wanted to — if there was sufficient
pressure on them to ratify the popular
verdict.
And what would happen if the "what if"
scenario came out the other way? "Then
we'd be doing the same thing Bush is
apparently getting ready for," says a Gore
campaign official. "They're just further
along in their contingency thinking than we
are. But we wouldn't lie down without a
fight, either."
nydailynews.com |
