Will Republicans Accept an Obama win?

[DiscoBerry]

I have been saying this for a while, however Slate.com has put it a lot more eloquently than I.  The author is right, we run our elections like a bunch of retards and expect that there will be nothing to complain about.   

This week features what conservative blogs are touting as an “explosive” new report suggesting that the Obama campaign is illegally accepting massive foreign contributions via credit card. The so-called proof comes from a number of foreign visits to the Obama campaign website, the lack of any federal requirement to publicly disclose contributions from individuals who give less than $200 overall, and the Obama campaign’s supposed failure to use credit card verification tools to make sure the contributions are coming from inside the United States. 
Never mind that the Obama campaign has denied similar reports in the past and has confirmed it does use the verification tools; that an extensive Federal Election Commission audit of the 2008 Obama campaign found no evidence of illegal foreign contributions; that foreign visits to the website does not mean that foreign contributions are being made; and that U.S. citizens (including those in the military) living abroad have the right to contribute to federal campaigns. The claims are a way to delegitimize the Obama campaign, even as Republican leaders in Congress stymie efforts to fix our broken disclosure laws and argue for less disclosure of campaign finance information.
All of these conspiracy theories—like the earlier birther controversies—indicate that if we are unlucky enough to have a very close election in November in which President Obama ekes out a victory, we can expect Republicans to question the election results, too. We’ll have the Fraudulent Fraud Squad telling us that Democrats used voter fraud to steal the election. Hucksters like John Fund will point to “bizarre” anomalies in vote totals from Democratic areas and tout new conspiracy theories. Social media will likely fan the flames.
Unfortunately, as I argue in The Voting Wars, we run our elections so badly that there will be plenty of things for Republicans to complain about: partisan election officials, broken voting machines, unclear rules and controversial court decisions, inconsistencies between voter registration totals, exit polls, and the final voting tally. 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/will_republicans_accept_if_barack_obama_defeats_mitt_romney_.html

[Random Gal]

I can't help but notice that many Democrats behaved similarly after the 2004 election, claiming exit poll discrepancies in Ohio as evidence that Bush stole the election from Kerry.

Not that I'm siding with the Republicans here, just noticing that Americans in general have had a problem accepting election results in recent years. Ths probably stems from the 2000 election fiasco.

[cheese007]

I'm gonna be a pessimist and say he probably won't win, so it's a moot point.

[Stormwarden]

If he does win, well, I'm sure we're gonna hear some wharrgarbl out of the GOP. At the very least, we'll be seeing a bunch if Teabaggers throwing one hell of a tantrum.

[Sylvana]

Short answer, no.
Longer answer, people just don't accept people winning who they don't support. Just like how democrats and liberals would claim that Bush was not their president because they didn't vote for him, republicans sprout the same stuff right now. The exact same things are said in my country and we don't even have close polls we have a dominating one party state. People will just not accept anyone they do not support. On the good side though, these same people will almost all of the time (there will always be the odd nutcase on either side) do absolutely nothing about it except whine.

The whole psychology of this non acceptance is very counter-productive to societal development, because one actually needs to realize that regardless of who is in charge we all need to work together to make the country flourish. However when one side refuses to work with the other side because they don't accept them, it creates a tension that gets in the way of progress. Even when the ones in charge change the sides that refuses to accept changes and you are left with the same annoying stalemate.

I think they only realistic way to really change the situation is to ensure that you never have a 2 party or less system. With more and more varied political parties there will be less direct opposition to each other and there would be a greater sense of cohesion. It wont be perfect, but it should work a bit better.

[erictheblue]

I think they only realistic way to really change the situation is to ensure that you never have a 2 party or less system. With more and more varied political parties there will be less direct opposition to each other and there would be a greater sense of cohesion. It wont be perfect, but it should work a bit better.

While I have long wished for more than 2 parties, that just isn't viable on the national level. Local and state elections can (and have) elected third party candidates, but when it comes to Presidential elections, third parties break down. Part of that is financial - the GOP and Democratic Parties have a funding base that other parties only dream of. There's also the lack of networking and grass roots. (People don't support third parties because they aren't viable. This leads to them not being viable, which leads to people not supporting them...) Finally, the electorial college system the US uses makes it so a vote for a third party works out to a vote for the candidate you like the least. (Since the EC is winner-take-all, by voting for a third party who has no chance of winning the state, you've taken a vote away from the candidate who actually has a chance of winning. The more people who do that, the more likely the least-liked candidate will win since the more liked candidate did not get enough votes.)

There is a movement going to change the way states allocate EC votes. Under the new system, states would allocate their votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote. (Although several state legislatures have passed such laws, they will not kick in until enough states to reach a majority of the EC pass the laws.) That system would not fix the issue of only having 2 viable parties, but would make elections national elections (which they aren't now. Most states are securely GOP or Democrat, with only a few swing states deciding who wins.)

Another option, which I would love to see but is very unlikely to come into effect, is allocating EC votes based on the percentage of popular votes a candidate got in that state. (So if a state has 10 EC votes, if Candidate A got 50%, Candidate B got 40% and Candidate C got 10%, A would get 5 votes, B 4, and C 1.) A few (2, I think) states do that now.

[DiscoBerry]

Another option, which I would love to see but is very unlikely to come into effect, is allocating EC votes based on the percentage of popular votes a candidate got in that state. (So if a state has 10 EC votes, if Candidate A got 50%, Candidate B got 40% and Candidate C got 10%, A would get 5 votes, B 4, and C 1.) A few (2, I think) states do that now.

IIRC, California is the only state of consequence that has this law on the books...However, the fine print of the law says they won't put it into practice until other states do too. 

[Veras]

Another option, which I would love to see but is very unlikely to come into effect, is allocating EC votes based on the percentage of popular votes a candidate got in that state. (So if a state has 10 EC votes, if Candidate A got 50%, Candidate B got 40% and Candidate C got 10%, A would get 5 votes, B 4, and C 1.) A few (2, I think) states do that now.

Maine and Nebraska allow for their electoral vote to be split, but that's not how it works.  Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to their combined number of Representatives (based on population) and Senators (two).  In those two states, each congressional district is allowed to choose who it gives its electoral vote to, and whoever wins the state's popular vote gets the two extra votes.

2008 was the first time that a state has ever split their vote under this system.  Obama won Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (Omaha), and therefore got 1 electoral vote from the state.  It is unlikely to happen again soon, as both of Maine's districts are safely Democratic, and all three of Nebraska's are safely Republican (the Second District was redrawn after the 2010 Census, and it is far more conservative than it was four years ago).

[KZN02]

I've thread that after George W Bush won his first term, Clinton's staff did a lot of sabotage on the White House before they left.

[Veras]

They reportedly removed the W's from all of the keyboards in the White House in protest of how Bush won.

[nickiknack]

How about getting rid the Electoral College, I would love to see that come about...the electoral college is the most bs thing ever thought up. Or even the 2 parties actually give a shit for why people are sick of them, and try adopting some of the positions of the third parties into their platforms.

[JohnE]

They reportedly removed the W's from all of the keyboards in the White House in protest of how Bush won.

I think that's an urban legend, but a quick Snopes search didn't turn up anything one way or the other.

[Veras]

Yeah, I used the word "reportedly" because I'm not convinced that it happened.

I think I got it from an Al Franken book, so...

[TigerHunter]

I can't help but notice that many Democrats behaved similarly after the 2004 election, claiming exit poll discrepancies in Ohio as evidence that Bush stole the election from Kerry.

Not that I'm siding with the Republicans here, just noticing that Americans in general have had a problem accepting election results in recent years. Ths probably stems from the 2000 election fiasco.

Except that Republicans are ALREADY predicting that Obama will win the election by fraud. Just take a look at RR's predictions thread.

Romney is probably the worst candidate that could have come out of the GOP, well for conservative/libertarian voters he is. Even so, I honestly believe minus massive voter fraud, he would win in a landslide. Guess we'll see how rampant fraud is this year.

I've thread that after George W Bush won his first term, Clinton's staff did a lot of sabotage on the White House before they left.

Those reports were intentionally blown out of proportion by Rove. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm

[Witchyjoshy]

Here's another question.

Would we accept a Romney win?