Electoral College Curiosity
Mon, 2008-10-13 18:49
#1
Malcolm
Electoral College Curiosity
Mon, 2008-10-13 18:49
#2
Malcolm
Of course, the popular vote means squat in the US Presidential election. The President is chosen by the Electoral College, and the votes of the Electoral College are determined by a winner take all allocation of the Electors in each state.*
The number of a state's Electors is euqal to the number of Senators and Congresspersons from the state. Each state has two Senators and at least one Congressperson. Somehow the District of Columbis gets three Electors, but I'm not sure how.
There are 538 Electors. To win the Presidency, a candidate requires 270 Electoral votes. Otherwise the contest goes to the House of Representatives, who vote by state delegations.
In any event, CNN has an interesting interactive tool to predict the Electoral College vote. I used that for this little exercise.
Assume that any state which has voted for the same party's candidate in the last four elections will vote for that same party's candidate again in this election.
Assume also that John McCain's state of Arizona, which voted for Clinton in 1996 will vote for McCain.
That gives a cumulative result of:
Obama 248 (only 22 short)
McCain 140 (130 short)
Unallocated 150
Obama would need only 22/150 (14.67%) of the remaining votes, while McCain would need 130/150 (86.67%).
(* Note - two states do not use the winner take all formulation. Maine and Nebraksa assign two Electors to whichever candidate carries the states, and one Elector to the candidate who carries each Congressional district. Notionally, the Maine delegation could therefore be divided 3-1 or 1-3, but not 2-2. Nebraska's delegation could be divided 3-2, 4-1, 1-4 or 2-3. In fact, neither state has ever divided their delegation since the current rules went into effect.)
[url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/]CNN Electoral Vote Calculator[/url]
[url=http://www.electoral-vote.com/]Electoral Vote Tracker[/url]
Mon, 2008-10-13 19:51
#3
I think Crazy George II has one or two Republican-appointed electors to thank for giving him the nod in 2000 after losing the popular vote count.
Mon, 2008-10-13 20:48
#4
Malcolm
No. There were no "faithless electors" in 2000 or 2004. (The last "faithless elector" was in 1968, I believe.)
Bush won because the process determined that he had won the plurality of votes in states with enough electoral votes. Despite real concerns about electoral fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, the authorities certified election results in both cases which sent Bush's elector nominees to the college.
Mon, 2008-10-13 22:28
#5
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10208]Subverting Democracy Through Electoral Fraud[/url]
quote:
[b]The Electoral College[/b]It's another systemic flaw, but the term isn't in the Constitution. And until the early 1800s, it wasn't in common usage to describe the way presidents and vice-presidents are elected. However, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states:~//~
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 then explained the original way electors chose presidents and vice-presidents: "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President....after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." Today, of course, there's no separation between the two.
The Framers considered several options in choosing the current one, but clearly their own self-interest came first. One idea was for Congress to choose the president. Another was for state legislatures to do it, and a third was to let the people decide by popular vote. The Founders chose a fourth way - an indirect election by each state's-appointed Number of Electors. Nearly always they support voter wishes, but they're free to vote independently if they choose. In the nation's history, [b]157 electors did so and went against the will of the majority.[/b]
Mon, 2008-10-13 22:36
#6
Interested Observer
Check out this [url=http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/]site[/url] on the electoral college and other predictions.
Mon, 2008-10-13 23:05
#7
The wonderful think about the United States being one of the first modern democracies is that its system is the most archaic. I don't know why the Americans don't amend thier electoral system. My suspicion is that its generally very hard to convince a populace to do so. Seriously, most western countries have the same electoral system, be it PR, Presidential or FPTP parlimentary. The only exception I can think of is New Zealand and maybe Australia?
In any event, Obama has built a solid lead this election, in both the popular vote and in the electoral college. McCain needs to win virtually every "battleground" state to win the election. That's tough. I don't think he'll do it.
I don't have any clue as to why the Americans
Tue, 2008-10-14 00:41
#8
Interested Observer
Correct, their system is flawed mostly because they came out with it so early and were not ready to accept many changes afterwards.
I predict an Obama landslide!
The way things are trending, even west virginia might go his way.
Tue, 2008-10-14 12:29
#9
quote:
Bush won because the process determined that he had won the plurality of votes in states with enough electoral votes. Despite real concerns about electoral fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, the authorities certified election results in both cases which sent Bush's elector nominees to the college.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Bush won in 2000 because the Supreme Court declared him the winner, and ordered the recounting of the votes to cease immediately. They had no right to do this, but they did anyway, and nobody fought them to any great extent. The subsequent recountings that were done anyway all showed that Gore won by any standard.
Tue, 2008-10-14 22:57
#10
Malcolm
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
[b]I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Bush won in 2000 because the Supreme Court declared him the winner, and ordered the recounting of the votes to cease immediately.[/b]
The court ordered an end to the recounts IN FLORIDA. Thus, the Sectretary of State for Florida certified an electoral result which awarded Florida's 27 electoral votes to GWB.
Although the 2004 race didn't carry it to the same extremes, there were similar concerns about voting irregularities in Ohio. Had Ohio gone to Kerry, he would have won 20 additional electoral votes, which would have given him a majority in the Electoral College - and therefore the presidency - even though GWB carried the popular vote nationally.
Tue, 2008-10-14 23:37
#11
Yes, in Florida. You said the authorities verified the results in both cases, which isn't true.
And in 2004, the irregularities in Ohio were even worse, culminating in the department of friggin' homeland security shutting down the polling district that was going to decide it all, and counting the votes in secret. Neither of those elections should have been accepted by the political establishment, let alone the voters, but as we all know, the US political culture is hopelessly fucked.
In fact, the only thing that interests me about the upcoming US election is the spectacle of what kind of nastiness they'll use to steal it this time, and if Obama's lead will be too big to fix.
Tue, 2008-10-14 23:41
#12
Oh, sorry. I see what you're saying now. The authorities [i]certified[/i] the results, not [i]verified[/i] them. In any event, they shouldn't have done this, anymore than the SC should have told them to, but that's not what you were saying so I'll shut up.
Wed, 2008-10-15 21:03
#13
Malcolm
Whether the results were accurate or not, they were certified by the officials who had the authority to certify them.
Hold the other children's hands, Jacob, and follow the tour. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-10-17 07:10
#14
About the electoral college, [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26627496/]Obama's team is covering all the bases[/url] by going after NE-2.
Fri, 2008-10-17 07:24
#15
ElizaQ
They're playing the vote control/disenfranchisement game in Ohio right now. I've lost track on where the legal situation stands right now.
With the way things are going though the election may not even turn on Ohio this time. Obama could win without Ohio. Though that's a much bigger stretch with the way things are shaping up he could even win without Florida either.
I think that the electoral college system is pretty messed up but it sure makes watching an election and the strategies being implemented pretty interesting. In a way this election is like watching a surreal game of Risk.
Fri, 2008-10-17 09:48
#16
Malcolm
Of course, the electoral college system means that many states are effectively left out of the process entirely. Campaign operations in "safe" blue states or "safe" red states become virtually non-existent well in advance of the election. The McCain campaign recently pulled virtually all their resources out of Michigan once it was determined that the state was no longer in play.
Fri, 2008-10-17 12:25
#17
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states]There are 19 states that you could say are "safely" red or blue.[/url] The rest have gone for either the Democrats or Republicans in the last 4 elections ... or have their senators currently split between the two parties.
I think what Obama is signalling, with his 50-state voter registration efforts, early-campaign ad buys (eg. Alaska pre-Palin, North Dakota, and Georgia), and his 30-minute ad later this month, is that he wants to redraw the map.
Fri, 2008-10-17 16:07
#18
Malcolm
Three of those "safely" red states are vulnerable anyway. Virgina is currently polling for Obama, while North Carolina keeps switching between barely McCain and tied. North Dakota recently switched from solidly McCain to barely Obama.