Hurricane Sandy and Election Day (Hmm...)

Mods. if this is in the wrong section please move.

Not to sound like a cold heart SOB. Forgive me if you take this wrong.

But I was wondering how or if Hurricane Sandy might affect the election. So far the damage is in the Northeast which is usually Democratic. However, when you view the breakdown of the state maps and their voting records by county you see that the majority of the states counties are primarily republican and the majority of the Democratic sway is in the larger cities/areas which cause the state to be democrat.

Moreover, if the majority of damage and destruction is in the major cities/areas that might sway the election.

How?

If you view the issue in plain terms, what is more important your life or a vote the overwhelming response will be a unanimous life vote. So if this is true wouldn't the vote count from the counties that were least affected outweigh the vote of the larger city/areas?

Furthermore, if this happens it could be a landslide for Romney just because of a natural disaster. Now don't get me wrong, I unequivocally do not want Romney to win and honestly I don't want Obama to win either. But hell lets face it we need a President and someone's going to win.

So I wonder how is it fair to allow the election to happen so soon after a disaster that affects not a town, city, or even one state but a good portion of our nation. Would you agree that this disaster is so large that it might actually call for an extension on election day?

Be you Republican/Democratic/Libertarian/Green Party/or Undecided you must admit that it isn't fair to make someone choose between life and a vote.

(This is something I just thought of and researched real fast, if any of you research gurus out there want to bust out the mad skills please drop some knowledge.)

Forgive me for the lack of maps and images. This just hit me like a bolt while watching the god awful news and no one seems to talk about how this may affect the election.

Originally posted by Fakshon
Mods. if this is in the wrong section please move.

...

Furthermore, if this happens it could be a landslide for Romney just because of a natural disaster. Now don't get me wrong, I unequivocally do not want Romney to win and honestly I don't want Obama to win either. But hell lets face it we need a President and someone's going to win.

...

Curious. I read that sentence and had a sudden realization: We'd be far, FAR better off without either one of them. We don't need a president. They just make things worse.

I wonder: Could we just fire Obama for cause and start interviewing for the job? Just take our time--years and years if necessary--and find somebody we like....

Originally posted by Fakshon
Mods. if this is in the wrong section please move.

Not to sound like a cold heart SOB. Forgive me if you take this wrong.

But I was wondering how or if Hurricane Sandy might affect the election. So far the damage is in the Northeast which is usually Democratic. However, when you view the breakdown of the state maps and their voting records by county you see that the majority of the states counties are primarily republican and the majority of the Democratic sway is in the larger cities/areas which cause the state to be democrat.

Moreover, if the majority of damage and destruction is in the major cities/areas that might sway the election.

How?

If you view the issue in plain terms, what is more important your life or a vote the overwhelming response will be a unanimous life vote. So if this is true wouldn't the vote count from the counties that were least affected outweigh the vote of the larger city/areas?

Furthermore, if this happens it could be a landslide for Romney just because of a natural disaster. Now don't get me wrong, I unequivocally do not want Romney to win and honestly I don't want Obama to win either. But hell lets face it we need a President and someone's going to win.

So I wonder how is it fair to allow the election to happen so soon after a disaster that affects not a town, city, or even one state but a good portion of our nation. Would you agree that this disaster is so large that it might actually call for an extension on election day?

Be you Republican/Democratic/Libertarian/Green Party/or Undecided you must admit that it isn't fair to make someone choose between life and a vote.

(This is something I just thought of and researched real fast, if any of you research gurus out there want to bust out the mad skills please drop some knowledge.)

The only thing that will make me sick to my stomach is that the recovery effort will be quicker than what happened to New Orleans after Katrina.
Not because of lessons learned,but because of politics.
I wonder if they will get those fema trailers.

My heart goes out to all those affected,but you have got to look at the difference.

I don't know how they work this out. If New York and other areas are as badly smacked down as they appear, this isn't excuses or false anythings. It's a legitimate Constitutional question if major U.S. cities are realistically unable to vote. How is voting suppose to work if the infrastructure is still on the fritz or even out entirely into next week?

Hey, I'm conservative....if I had no ethics or sense of nation before politics, it'd be my greatest dream come true....but looking at it that way is the most mercenary thing I can imagine too.

I believe there are provisions in place that came after 9/11 to cover the possibility of major national disruption at that worst possible moment. Terrorist or otherwise.

What can we do? Blame God or prove it wasn't natural...None of that even matters though when the voting process is a crap shoot for fraud when everything is running normally.... how can we even joke about fair outcomes if millions are still in survival mode?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I have read a handful of articles on the potential impact...No one knows for sure yet. Factors to consider....

(1) yes...the areas effect are disproportionately Democrat...Lower Dem. turnout?
- Still wouldn't effect electoral college since the states it effected are Dem. by a large enough margin.
- Could make a scenario where Romney wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college like in (Bush vs. Gore) where Gore got the popular vote (by 500 votes in Florida) but lost the electoral college.

(2) In times of crisis, folks (independants) have a greater appreciation for government as they see Aid workers, Fema, shelters etc. It's possible that the crisis will pull more on-the-fencers toward the Dems.

Bottom line is that no one knows, but best guess is that it will effect Popular vote...some...but not electoral college.

reply to post by Indigo5


True, but am I incorrect in thinking that the electoral college is suppose to be based off the votes of the counties? Wouldn't this make it an issue since the swing would possibly sway to the Republican side? Then wouldn't they have to if by a landslide Romney won the majority of votes in fact vote for Romney? This is the dilemma really how does the electoral college vote based on our votes? And if by say they do vote for Obama even though it is a landslide for Romney in state does this mean the electoral college is a flawed system?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree. I am a True Republican - Libertarian now I guess. lol. And I if this would work in to the benefits of Gary Johnson or say a Ron Paul I would have inside love to see the victory. However, in reality it is completely unfair. I would hate to have to choose between life and a vote. A vote I might point out that will affect my life in a very major way. This vote is at a crucial pivot point in time! This isn't a la la moment where we can just vote for the sake of voting, it's a major freaking decision that will determine the future of the US and will affect each of us in drastic ways. I think they really need to think this through.

reply to post by Fakshon

First, let me help clarify something real quick, because your point raises a real interesting question I hadn't looked at that way before. The Electoral College votes by state, not county. The countys determine the electors or representatives who then proceed to a state convention in each state (Or how the states each have their own system set up for this) and then from there, the state convention chooses the electors who will stand for the state in the electoral college and make their votes by December..when that count is taken. Here is a short list of dates and events where the College is concerned with explanations of each.

Electoral College and Order of Events

Your point that made me think? Well... These are almost all blue states it's happened to. Since the Electoral college is state based, the states in question would still almost certainly carry in the direction they were going to carry anyway....I doubt this changes anyone to go against Obama, at any rate. He's doing a fair job on this. So..would national outcome actually change for the Presidential race? I'm thinking..it very well may not?


....Of course in reality, what changes? "May not" "Could be" "Should be" aren't terms that fit in our system, right? It's got to BE fair as well as LOOK fair....so hell... I guess we're in a real pickle here if things aren't at a bare functional level across much of the most populated areas of our nation in a few days.

Originally posted by Fakshon
does this mean the electoral college is a flawed system?

LOTS of questions there, but please forgive me if I skip to the one that is most easily answered.

Many do think the electoral college is a flawed system...one which has favored the GOP consistantly for the past 50 years, most easily seen in 04 with Gore winning the popular vote and Bush winning the electoral college.

BUT it is how the founding fatehrs designed it...and enshrined it. To change it would require a super-majority of the states, and since many states both Red and Blue benefit from the system, that is unlikely to happen.

The electoral college was created by our founders for two purposes...
(1) to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President.
"The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."

Hamilton and others wanted to ensure that only qualified and fully vetted candidates would become President and thus looked to dilute the power of (the easily swayed) popular vote.

Despite this, only a few times in history have "electors" sent by the states voted in opposition to thier populace.

(2) to structure gov in a way that gave extra power to the smaller states.

Each state has the same number of electoral votes as they have members of congress, thus states with smaller populations are still not disenfranchised.

The result of this system is that in this election
the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector [sent by the state] represented 70,000 votes,

while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate.

Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states./ex]

www.historycentral.com...

Because it is easier than para-phrasing

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.


While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states.

www.historycentral.com...

Sidenote: Nate Silvers predicts there is about an 8% chance that one candidate will win the popular vote while the other wins the electoral college....and a .2 (point 2) percent chance that they will tie.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks for answering the question more precisely than myself

Counties vote - winner of that county is assigned ...then counties tallied to determine which way the state votes.

If a New Jersey county on the shore has lower voter turnout....that county still holds the same weight regardless on numbers that show up to vote in that county, so as long as the smaller sample (voters who show up) still represents the leaning of the county, it shouldn't change things in electoral math.

reply to post by Fakshon


Well Washington D.C. is flying in support for electricity.....Believe me, OBAMA knows this will hurt him badly in the election if they don't get to vote!!

Obama will do ANYTHING in human power to get the people back up and running to vote!!

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

Okay, I have to disagree here and say I think even Barack Obama is thinking about more than his own political future. Of course, that is high on his mind, I don't suggest otherwise with days to go..but that isn't ALL I believe he's focused on. He is, after all, the President and he can never forget that, I'm sure.

If folks have specific examples of what Obama has done or could have done differently that has hurt something since Sandy made landfall, I'm all pointy ears to listen. Otherwise... He's been more Presidential for this crisis than I think I've personally seen him. Maybe he told Axelrod and the other Political advisers to shut up and sit down while he does his job where Sandy is concerned? It looks possible to me. Good for him, if so.