This could change the whole presidential election - Be careful with your bets

[Dan Kelly]

This was reported in the news today:
"Some members of the Republican Party are bandying about a plan to run a "real" Republican as a third-party candidate. The candidate's job would not be to get 270 electoral votes. That would be impossible. The goal would be to win a few states and deny the Democratic nominee - presumably Hillary Clinton - 270 electoral votes. According to the Constitution, if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, then the President will be chosen by the Republican dominated House of Representatives, with each state getting one vote. They can choose anyone from the top three electoral-vote getters. So if the third-party Republican won only a couple of states, far behind Clinton and Trump, it wouldn't matter. He could still be elected President by the house.
Meanwhile, if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes for vice president, the Senate picks the vice president from the top two finishers (not top three). So, suppose Paul Ryan ran for president on a third-party ticket and picked off Ohio and his home state of Wisconsin, and that was enough to ensure neither Clinton nor Trump got to 270. Then the Republicans in the House could elect Ryan President, but they would have to choose between Clinton's running mate and Trump's running mate for Veep. If the incoming Senate is divided 50-50, the choice of Vice President could be important."

Our constitution was written with the quaint notion that partisan politics, as was seen in England and the colonies in the last half of the 18th century, would not be part of the American democratic experience. The idea was that communities would make decisions without parties (there is not one mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution), so the rules to elect a president with 'electors', and to break presidential election ties in the House of Representatives may now seem convoluted, but in context make perfect sense and could make the 2016 election very interesting and historically unique.
Check in with your President bet ideas - BUT PLEASE NO POLITICS. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR POLITICS AND YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO CHANGE ANYBODYS MIND.

BoL

[VeggieDog]

Never happen. Just get used to saying President Clinton (again).

[habitualwinning]

Never happen. Just get used to saying President Clinton (again).

It's happened twice before in our country's history. Be careful what you wish for.

To the OP I talked about this possibility last night in another thread before I even saw a news article about it. This has always been a possibility since the Republican party is so divided right now. Hell, even the Dems are divided as Sanders is faring much better than expected winning some states. We live in a crazy ass country where shit like this could potentially decide a presidency.

[jtoler]

It's happened twice before in our country's history. Be careful what you wish for.

To the OP I talked about this possibility last night in another thread before I even saw a news article about it. This has always been a possibility since the Republican party is so divided right now. Hell, even the Dems are divided as Sanders is faring much better than expected winning some states. We live in a crazy ass country where shit like this could potentially decide a presidency.

Youre a republican right?

[Scorpion]

[d2bets]

This was reported in the news today:
"Some members of the Republican Party are bandying about a plan to run a "real" Republican as a third-party candidate. The candidate's job would not be to get 270 electoral votes. That would be impossible. The goal would be to win a few states and deny the Democratic nominee - presumably Hillary Clinton - 270 electoral votes. According to the Constitution, if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, then the President will be chosen by the Republican dominated House of Representatives, with each state getting one vote. They can choose anyone from the top three electoral-vote getters. So if the third-party Republican won only a couple of states, far behind Clinton and Trump, it wouldn't matter. He could still be elected President by the house.
Meanwhile, if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes for vice president, the Senate picks the vice president from the top two finishers (not top three). So, suppose Paul Ryan ran for president on a third-party ticket and picked off Ohio and his home state of Wisconsin, and that was enough to ensure neither Clinton nor Trump got to 270. Then the Republicans in the House could elect Ryan President, but they would have to choose between Clinton's running mate and Trump's running mate for Veep. If the incoming Senate is divided 50-50, the choice of Vice President could be important."

Our constitution was written with the quaint notion that partisan politics, as was seen in England and the colonies in the last half of the 18th century, would not be part of the American democratic experience. The idea was that communities would make decisions without parties (there is not one mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution), so the rules to elect a president with 'electors', and to break presidential election ties in the House of Representatives may now seem convoluted, but in context make perfect sense and could make the 2016 election very interesting and historically unique.
Check in with your President bet ideas - BUT PLEASE NO POLITICS. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR POLITICS AND YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO CHANGE ANYBODYS MIND.

BoL

Better get started soon. There are ballot deadlines. I believe if they wait until after the late July convention, it's too late.

[DABOOK]

Brilliant.

[habitualwinning]

Youre a republican right?

I'm not affiliated with either party, never have been, never will be. I'm anti-establishment/anti-fascism. So I'm closer to Independent or Anarchist than either mainstream political party. What about you?

[Mr KLC]

Would not happen. It would just divide the Republican vote, and give more states to Hillary. Perot did it to Bush in 1992, and Nader did it to Gore in 2000.

[jtoler]

I'm not affiliated with either party, never have been, never will be. I'm anti-establishment/anti-fascism. So I'm closer to Independent or Anarchist than either mainstream political party. What about you?

Kinda like you for the most part. Perot/Ron Paul types are who I would have backed.

[DwightShrute]

true but incomplete. The Democratic party should be on there as well

[jjgold]

[actiondan]

Voting: The Slave's suggestion box

[jjgold]

Everyone laughing at America as it is a laughig stock low class nation

[Ralphie Halves]

When America starts caring what other countries think about them, I'll let you know.

And Hillary sweeps the board when it comes to corporate sponsorship. She's still going to win easily.

[marcoloco]

Voting: The Slave's suggestion box

[pavyracer]

The Rothchilds decided Hillary would be the President.

[Otters27]

Wow

[Scorpion]

[INVEGA MAN]

Clinton in a landslide