Anyone know how the Electoral College looks right now?

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

Is there a good assessment out there? I know CA, NY, IL, DC are in our column but what about everywhere else?

[phillybri]

1. A friend of mine is doing a running breakdown....

http://www.federalreview.com/compositepoll.htm

Check it out...

[TheStateChief]

8. Actually, most recent polls have Bush up in WI and NM

Bush is up +1 in NM (well within the margin of error) and +6 in Wisconsin (well outside the margin of error). That brings the electoral vote count based on the most recent polls to 314-224 in favor of Bush.

[mobuto]

18. Except most polls also have

Kerry up in OH and WV. The idea of making VA a swing state and making AR and AZ strong for Bush is also somewhat questionable. The +6 poll in Wisconsin seems like a fluke - it certainly hasn't been confirmed by other polls and the poll was highly flawed from a number of reasons (small sample size, didn't exclude those not registered to vote, etc.)

[TheStateChief]

27. Most recent polls

From the 18 contested 'Battleground' states. Most polls are from late March, early April so results may have changed, but these are the most recent numbers:

Bush is up more than the margin of error in:

Arizona (+9), Colorado (+9), Florida (+8), Indiana (+15), Missouri (+7), Nevada (+11), New Hampshire (+5), Pennsylvania (+6), Tennessee (+11), Wisconsin (+6)

Bush is up less than the margin of error in:

New Mexico (+1), Ohio (+2),

Kerry is up more than the margin of error in:

Iowa (+10), Michigan (+10), Minnesota (+12), Washington (+6)

Kerry is up less than the margin of error in:

Oregon (+5)

The two are tied in West Virginia

[apnu]

2. It shouldn't look like anything...

...because it's not necessary in today's world. The "point" of the electoral college just doesn't apply in our modern, technological world.

Yeah, I hate it, and I'm in the camp that the Presidential Election should be a general election, and counting who won states is stupid.

Sorry if I sound a bit course on this, but the EC is a pet peeve of mine.

[phillybri]

3. I agree...The EC was useful at one time, but that time ain't now...

One man, one vote. If more people chose a candidate, he/she should be their leader...

[library_max]

4. With a direct national presidential election

you get nationwide recounts, not statewide, hugely increased incentives for vote fraud in uniparty Republican or Democratic states, and no incentive for presidential candidates to campaign outside their biggest, most populous vote-getting territories (you'd never see a Democratic presidential candidate more than 100 miles from an ocean or great lake again). Also, you create the possiblity of purely regional presidential candidates who could win on the strength of overwhelming popular vote in just a few states.

[Goldmund]

5. I don't see this.

"hugely increased incentives for vote fraud in uniparty Republican or Democratic states"

Why? The concept of a "state" wouldn't apply at all. If anything, the EC system increases the incentives of vote fraud in states -- for ex, in the last election, all they had to do was rig a few thousand votes. In a nationwide election, you'd need a few hundred thousand.

"no incentive for presidential candidates to campaign outside their biggest, most populous vote-getting territories"

So what? 99.999999% of people only ever see candidates in their living rooms, on their TV sets.

"purely regional presidential candidates who could win on the strength of overwhelming popular vote in just a few states"

Again, so what? Isn't that the way it should be? Shouldn't what's good for LA or NYC get more consideration than what's good for Wyoming, being that there are many, many more people in those areas?

It's a fact that rural and urban areas have different mindsets. This, of course, doesn't apply to all people -- I have met some extremely liberal people from the boonies -- but one of the main reasons why "red states" are "red" and "blue states" are "blue" is that rural people tend to be more conservative.

So tell me, why does it take 3 people from a city to equal the weight of a single person from the country? Why do opinions of a likely conservative from Nebraska far outweigh the opinion of a likely liberal from NYC?

[apnu]

7. I don't see it either

The states should still be responsible as they are now, just dump the EC. Keep the system they way they are, just count the "popular" vote as the one that selects the president, and dump the "electorial" vote.

It's redundant to have a second "election" after the first, since there isn't one law that forces the EC members to actually vote the way their distrects went in the general election.

[library_max]

21. Let me explain.

Regarding election fraud, take a red state, say Alabama. Right now, there's no incentive for vote fraud - all Bush can get is Alabama's electoral votes, which he's going to get anyway, no matter how many popular votes he gets there, so there's no point in manufacturing any. Sure, there'd be a point in manufacturing votes in, say, Pennsylvania, but there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans there to look over each others' shoulders. Uniparty satraps wouldn't have the process all to themselves.

Regarding campaigning and regional candidates. There are urban areas that are heavily Republican. Just to pick on the obvious, four of the ten largest cities in the US are in Texas, more than in any other state. That's not the point. The point is that there needs to be some incentive for candidates to address the needs of all kinds of people, rich and poor, white and not white, urban and rural, etc. If a candidate can win by driving the turnout from "his kind of folks" into the stratosphere, the premises of democracy are in danger. Democracy works only when the majority respects the rights and the interests of the minority and the minority in turn defers to the right of the majority to decide. If the easiest way for a candidate to win is to run against the interests of a large part of the voting population, look out.

Yes, I know, that's exactly what Bush will have to do in 2004. It's one of the reasons I don't think he'll win. He was able to fool people in 2000, to run as a bipartisan uniter and a compassionate conservative, but that won't work again. And he didn't actually win even in 2000. Bush supporters in Texas, for example, didn't exactly bust their asses getting to the polling places, because everybody knew that Bush would win Texas. But suppose Bush could get back into office based solely on his enormous popular vote in Texas (some of it probably fraudulent) plus, say, 43% in the rest of the country? You'd see some really impressive voter turnouts in Texas. Should the fanaticism of a candidate's support matter more than the breadth of it?

I agree that it would be better to base states' electoral votes solely on their population, but since that would have to be ratified by two thirds of the states (yes, those states), I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Josh]

29. But it's stupid because it works on population, not turnout

The number of EC votes for Colorado, Connecticut, and Arizona are the same - but the voter turnout might be HUGE in Arizona, moderate in Colorado, and TINY in Connecticut, for example. Doesn't matter how many people voted, these states each get the same say in electing the President.

It means that the electoral college discriminates against states with HIGH turnout.

And that's just ONE of the many, many problems with the electoral college.

[library_max]

30. You're making my point for me.

Allow high turnout in one state or one region to determine an election, and you open the door for purely regional candidates to win the presidency. Insofar as possible, the president should be president of all the United States, not just a few, even if those few really, really want him. And again, there's the issue of fraud in one-party conservative (or liberal) states.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Yet even after the 2000 election, not one member of Congress

has introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college. Not one Republican. Not one Democrat. Not even the two independents.

[apnu]

9. I know...

... and that only shows the weakness in our political system. That its faulty and needs serious work. The EC can be abused, and has been abused by both parties before.

Yeah, it's a radical notion, and highly unlikely to occur, but it's the notion I have.

I also believe that Congress shouldn't be able to vote itself a raise, and that term limits should exist for each and every elected public official and judge. (Take a look at the slant on the SC as an example... do you honestly believe they are non-partisan? Imagine a world where Strom Thurmond was tossed after 6 terms as a senator.) The idea is that our elected officials will more accurately reflect the current state of the American mind, whatever that mind may be. That way you wouldn't have some politician hanging around filling a seat who happens to be living decades in the past.

The idea of dissolving the EC and term limits is too progressive and hurts the current system of cronie politics. IMO, entrenched politics would be very difficult to perform, and, I believe, that it would force politicians to actually work for the people instead of gorging on pork. Which, I'm sorry to say, is a plague that infects every party in this nation, no exceptions.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Term limits progressive?

That's straight for the Contract with America. One of the few parts of the contract that they were able to implement was to impose term limits on committee chairs in the House of Representatives.

[apnu]

11. sure it is...

... and hauling out the Contract with America? Boy that died a horrible death didn't it? Whee! Term limits on committee chairs in the House... Big whoop. CA didn't change a damn thing, it was a sham from beginning to end. But the best lies are the ones with a nugget of truth in them aren't they? Kinda like the Compassionate Conservative manafesto... a whopper of a lie with a few nuggets of truth in them. Don't be decieved...

No, complete term limits on all elected officials, means that our entire government will basically have to fire itself if it ever enacts a such a law. Which will never happen, that would be like me firing myself after 3 years at a job because it's time for someone else, it's a hard thought, and one that's extremely unlikely to ever see the light of day, but I do believe that our government should serve the people. And that our current system is not serving that end. It's pretty clear.

Why would a corporation invest tons of time and money on a senator or rep when they only have 2 or 3 terms to be the puppet of the special interest? Being able to only "rent" a senator for a limited time, and then being forced to start the courting process all over again would make it cost INeffective to continue.

As for sending their own senators into the mix, should complete term limits be implemented, don't they do that already today? At least with term limits, they wouldn't be able to entrench that stoolie, and would be forced to re-invest in a new stoolie every so often. Also an expensive proposition. And one thing corporations hate with a passion is spending their money.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. But with the frequent turnover

office holders would more dependant on campaing contributions. A well entreached incumbant is not as dependant on campaign cash, and would be more free to vote their conscience.

One of the strongest arguements against term limits is that it is simply undemocratic. It denies voters a choice. If they want to elect Congressman X to a fourth term, it is their right to do so. What term limits do is tell voters is that they do not know any better, and the decision to end a politician's tenure in office will be made for them.

[apnu]

19. OK then...

... how would you suggest we get rid of entrenched politicians? Particularly when they go bad? (i.e. Thurmond) And while we are at that, are you suggesting that we remove the term limit on the president?

I never said my idea is perfect, it's just an idea, and I think there's promise in the idea. As for choice, the voters would have the option for new choices, or an option to run themselves. With such a high turn over of elected officials, there would be more opportunity for people to be actively involved in our government instead of tossing in with a candidate.

[library_max]

22. If their own constituents think they've "gone bad,"

they can vote 'em out. The appeal of term limits is basically the desire to get rid of the candidate of someone else's choice, which is profoundly undemocratic - a way for Texans to vote against Ted Kennedy and for New Yorkers to vote against Trent Lott. It's rooted in a desire to deny representation to people we don't agree with.

Also, Freddie Stubbs is right. Only entrenched incumbents have the power to stand up to moneyed interests. With such a lot of turnover, especially in the House of Representatives, you'd have a lot of completely unknown candidates. How would any of these go about winning? By being owned and operated by an entrenched special interest. So in this race it'd be the oil company candidate versus the trial lawyers' candidate, in that race the agribusiness candidate versus the entertainment industry candidate. And the actual government would be run by lobbyists and staffers, because they'd be the only ones able to hang around long enough to find out what's going on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Do entrenched politicians need to be gotten rid of?

You seem to believe so. But voters seem to like these guys. Voters seem to like the idea of term limits in general, but shy away for it when appllying it to their represntatives.

Removing the term limit for President may not be a bad thing. If Clinton would have been able to run in 2000, things may very have have been very different.

[mobuto]

24. Term limits are blatantly undemocratic

In a democracy, you should be allowed to vote for anybody you damn well please. If a polician keeps on getting reelected to office, there's usually a reason for it -- the people like him or her. Why on earth would you want to force the people of Massachusetts to fire John Kerry, for example, simply because they trusted him with a job before? Why would you want to force the people to get rid of an accomplished and proven leader? If you can't trust the people to elect qualified leaders, then why bother even having elections?

Why would a corporation invest tons of time and money on a senator or rep when they only have 2 or 3 terms to be the puppet of the special interest?

I don't know. Maybe you should look at the South, where term limits have been in force for well over a hundred years. In Virginia, for example, Governors have long been held to a one-term limit. Does that mean Virginia governors have been uncorrupt? Well, not exactly. In fact, since politicians know they will not be able to count on a career in government, I think you'll find that they oftentimes try to angle for jobs in the private sector - and they do so by sucking up to big business.

[3rdParty]

13. The EC is permanent...

since an ammendment is necessary to change it to the popular vote and the smaller states (population wise) would never want the change since it would make them all irrelevant. The canidates would only go after the most populace areas of the country.

[quinnox]

15. Yep

I used to not understand the reasoning behind it, but a friend explained why the electoral college is important.

[apnu]

20. I doubt it

first off, politicians are only seen on TV to 99% of the US population as another poster said here. And as a general election without the EC, everybody's vote will count no matter where they are. Population density doesn't matter. Do you honestly think that visiting Rhode Island is more than a ceremonial stop today? When was the last time that the small states were fought over for the EC votes? Didn't NH (or VT i can't remember) go red in 2000 and it didn't matter one bit thanks to FL's EC count. Under the EC small states don't matter. Under EC my vote doesn't matter because I live in a solid blue state.

I'm voting for Kerry, but it doesn't matter since my state is considered "safe" territory to Kerry and he's gonna take it anyway. So the motivation for me to vote is pretty low regardless of my political desires. I'm still voting for Kerry for the exercise of my civil rights and the distinct pleasure I'll have by not choosing Bush, but it's a meaningless act.

Getting rid of the EC, then my vote would always count and not when my state is a swing state. Getting rid of the EC means not counting the election by who won what state, but buy who won the total number of votes. Also the complaints that Alaska and HI have about not mattering because of timezones will be killed as well. Since Alaska and HI have never mattered in an election.

[wadestock]

12. McLaughlin had a good show on that a few weeks ago.....

He concluded that Kerry had a clear edge by about 20 or 30 votes if I could remember.

It assumed NY, NJ, Penn, Fl, CA, OH....

http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=1467433 if you want to drive yourself crazy worrying about this....

you can see it's tight so the BEST THING YOU CAN DO....is tell your friends, family etc to go out and vote.

I think I have personally got close to 20 extra votes by bugging people who would easily vote Kerry to register and do it!

[dolstein]

14. I asked about this last week, as far as I can tell

Kerry doesn't have a lead outside the margin of error in ANY red state, although he has led in some polls for Ohio and Florida (although there are other Florida polls showing Bush in the lead). Bush has led in recent polls in certain blue states -- Pennsylvnia and possibly Wisconsin -- but I'm not sure if these leads are outside the margin of error.

The best news I see for Kerry is in Minnesota, where he seems to have opened up a large lead in a state that Gore narrowly won in 2000.

[jpgray]

17. My state, Minnesota, has Kerry by 12 points

So you other states, just start doing what we are doing. :D

[bigwillq]

25. I love your screen name (nt)

[Nicholas_J]

26. Varies a great deal

Onw web site that is tracking the electoral collegeis doing so but is heavily basing where the electoral votes are going to go based on the last polling data for a number of states and that data is a month old now. In a number of close states, like New Hampshire, where Bush had a major lead on Kerry a month ago, polls show Kerry is pulling up on Bush rapidly. Right now Kerry's strength is in the largest states, He sweeps the west coast, almost all of the states surrounding the great lakes Indiana being the only state leaning towards Bush and Wisconsin still too close to call,and much of the northeast with only Pennsylvania as an exception.A map of the states shows Bush with a clear hold in most of the southern tier of states right up to the California state line, with the exception of New Mexico, which is too close to call with Bush and Kerry polling at 47 percent each. It is odd that polling in the states that are critical and closely divided have come to a near standstill, and most of the polls done in those states have been done by rather unknown and known to be biased pollsters, and it becomes necessary to find out who paid for the polls to figure that into the pollsters results.

Still what is most critical is that Kerry is doing as well as he is against and incumbent. THe most important polling data for an incumbent is the polls that rate the president, and those do not look promising for Bush. in electoral votes Kerry now has 196 to an anticipated 202 for Bush, and this only results from a single poll in which Bush is seen to be ahead in Florida ignoring the five prior polls in that state in which Kerry had a significant lead. It seems too early to be counting electoral votes in many states.

[fujiyama]

28. onely two states matter

ohio and pennsylvania.

must win pa and another state....either oh or florida....