Zogby's up to date polling

[The Meal]

Jblank posted that note with a 100% effective mind-meld with yours truly. I think Bush's got the popular vote, *and* I think the EC is one of the greatest aspects of our republic's process.

~Neal

[Dirt]

It would be ironic.

[milo]

Don't ya think...

[Pointer]

A little too ironic....

[jblank]

It would be ironic.

It's sort of like rain on your wedding day, or maybe even a free ride, when you are already there.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Eco, thats the POPULAR vote projection, also known as irrelevant.

It would be interesting to see what happens if Kerry wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote to Bush... besides being clear divine retribution... I'd like to see bipartisan support to ditch the electoral college.

No, the electoral college MUST stay intact. Otherwise, New York, California, Texas, and Florida, decide every election. As a resident of Tennessee, a state with decent electoral representation, we dont get ignored in the electoral college. If you abolish the E.C. New Hampshire, Alaska, etc, will never see a candidate.

They already do. New York, Cali, et al, get electoral votes proportional to their population... it only the smallest states that get dispoportianate power relative to their population.

The real problem is the "winner take all" thing that makes these states even more powerful than you realize. If NYC and Cali had to divy up their votes relative to the popular votes, then you'd see more power actually conveyed to the mid-size states.

There has been a long series on this on Slate by Timmothy Noah...

[jblank]

I completely disagree Sparkle. All you need to do is look at this very race to see that a state as small as Iowa, 7 electoral votes, might just decide this race. If you eliminate the EC, Iowa may as well be in Southeast Asia, because they will become insignificant.

While the EC is proportional to population, the 3 electoral votes of Alaska and Vermont, are immensely more powerful, than their 500,000 or so individual votes would be in a popular vote election.

The founding fathers devised this for a reason, they saw what may happen with a full out, popular vote election, and frankly it wouldnt be right, nor would it be fair.

[Pointer]

Am I being stupid here?

How is a full on Popular Vote system not fair? One vote=One Vote in that situation. Right now, one Ohio vote is a lot more valuable than one Alaska Vote.

Pointer

[The Meal]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

[Mr. Sparkle]

I completely disagree Sparkle. All you need to do is look at this very race to see that a state as small as Iowa, 7 electoral votes, might just decide this race. If you eliminate the EC, Iowa may as well be in Southeast Asia, because they will become insignificant.

While the EC is proportional to population, the 3 electoral votes of Alaska and Vermont, are immensely more powerful, than their 500,000 or so individual votes would be in a popular vote election.

The founding fathers devised this for a reason, they saw what may happen with a full out, popular vote election, and frankly it wouldnt be right, nor would it be fair.

That is only true because Iowa is "in play", and the republican voters in Cali are meaningless.

You only have to look at the 2000 race and see that New Mexico was only decided by something like 300 votes, but nobody cared, because Florida with all those votes was disputed.

[jblank]

Am I being stupid here?

How is a full on Popular Vote system not fair? One vote=One Vote in that situation. Right now, one Ohio vote is a lot more valuable than one Alaska Vote.

Pointer

Come on Pointer, think about it. Which states have the most population? New York, Cali, Texas, etc. Those states will be the only states candidates for President would ever visit. The 9 million votes of my fellow Tennesseeans, pales in comparison to what they can get in Texas. Because of that, small states would be afterthoughts, and never visited. With the EC, 3 electoral votes, in a swing state, might just win an election, but the odds are that 500,000 Alaskans, wouldnt mean squat in a popular vote election.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

[jblank]

I completely disagree Sparkle. All you need to do is look at this very race to see that a state as small as Iowa, 7 electoral votes, might just decide this race. If you eliminate the EC, Iowa may as well be in Southeast Asia, because they will become insignificant.

While the EC is proportional to population, the 3 electoral votes of Alaska and Vermont, are immensely more powerful, than their 500,000 or so individual votes would be in a popular vote election.

The founding fathers devised this for a reason, they saw what may happen with a full out, popular vote election, and frankly it wouldnt be right, nor would it be fair.

That is only true because Iowa is "in play", and the republican voters in Cali are meaningless.

You only have to look at the 2000 race and see that New Mexico was only decided by something like 300 votes, but nobody cared, because Florida with all those votes was disputed.

But New Mexico very easily could have been the deciding state. How often will that happen in a popular vote election? Never. The simple fact that Iowa is a state that is of the utmost importance, backs up my argument. How many times would Iowa be "in play" in a popular vote election? My guess is never.

[Mr. Sparkle]

How many times have the candidates visited Deleware, vs Ohio and Florida.

The big states still call the shots.

[The Meal]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

If they didn't give consideration to the other states, their opponent would, and then *those* would become swing states. I don't think your position is very logical.

~Neal

[jblank]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

You still dont get it. Under a popular vote format, THERE IS NO SWING STATE. They will spend all their time in L.A, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Tampa, Miami, and Orlando. Do you want swing cities? Your vote carries infinitely more power in an electoral college election, than it does in a popular vote one.

[jblank]

How many times have the candidates visited Deleware, vs Ohio and Florida.

The big states still call the shots.

Actually, I know Kerry went there twice with Biden, namely because of its TV reach into New Jersey, but thats irrelevant. Kerry didnt go to Texas at all, whats that prove? It proves that in some cases, with some candidates, some states are unwinnable, and they dont need to be visited as much, but maybe next go around, Texas and Delaware may be in play. How many times do you think Delaware is gonna in play in a popular vote system?

[Mr. Sparkle]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

You still dont get it. Under a popular vote format, THERE IS NO SWING STATE. They will spend all their time in L.A, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Tampa, Miami, and Orlando. Do you want swing cities? Your vote carries infinitely more power in an electoral college election, than it does in a popular vote one.

What about the the voters who are effectively disenfranchised by the winner take all vote that has a margin of victory of 300 votes.

And do you really identify with your state more than your political party?

[jblank]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

If they didn't give consideration to the other states, their opponent would, and then *those* would become swing states. I don't think your position is very logical.

~Neal

I agree. Either he isnt really listening to us, or he truly hasnt really thought out his position on this.

[jblank]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

You still dont get it. Under a popular vote format, THERE IS NO SWING STATE. They will spend all their time in L.A, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Tampa, Miami, and Orlando. Do you want swing cities? Your vote carries infinitely more power in an electoral college election, than it does in a popular vote one.

What about the the voters who are effectively disenfranchised by the winner take all vote that has a margin of victory of 300 votes.

And do you really identify with your state more than your political party?

How are they disenfranchised? Their vote counted, and had the conditions lent themselves in the right way, they could have been "the Florida" of 2000. As it turned out, their closeness in 2000, equalled a close 2004,and has gotten them alot of attention. I bet the Bush voters that got him the win there would disagree with your assertion that they were disinfranchised.

As to your question about my identity with respect to my party, I dont understand you. I am a Tennessee Democrat, who likes the system, even though I am in a fairly Republican state. I think I have more power with my vote, in an electoral system, than I would with your plan.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

If they didn't give consideration to the other states, their opponent would, and then *those* would become swing states. I don't think your position is very logical.

~Neal

I agree. Either he isnt really listening to us, or he truly hasnt really thought out his position on this.

No, you are just completely wrong. Not, trying to be rude, but presidential candidates don't visit small states. They don't take their message to the people. There is in fact a disincentive to do this.

You don't need a large margin to "call" a state and completely abandon it. However, if there was a reason to court more in votes in "called" state, then these states would have more power actually.

Especially if the clout of California and New York and Texas were limited by spreading their power by popular vote.

[Padre]

I did a little analysis on the Elctoral College people might find interesting.

On a pure popular vote, it would be possible, albeit extremely unlikely, for the election to be decided purely by the followng states:
New Jersey
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Florida
New York
Texas
California

If Electoral Votes were made to be proportional to population (rounding to the nearest whole vote), you'd get something like this. This model assumes that Wyoming keeps the same number of votes (3) and everyone else scales up. The first number is the current EV, the second is the EV under my new calculations.

State----------------EV------New EV

Wyoming------------3----------3
D.C.-----------------3----------3
Vermont-------------3----------4
Alaska---------------3----------4
North Dakota-------3----------4
South Dakota-------3----------5
Delaware------------3----------5
Rhode Island--------4---------6
Montana-------------3----------6
Hawaii---------------4----------7
New Hampshire-----4---------8
Maine----------------4----------8
Idaho----------------4----------8
Nebraska------------5---------10
West Virginia--------5---------11
New Mexico---------5---------11
Nevada--------------5---------12
Iowa-----------------7---------18
Arkansas------------6---------17
Utah-----------------5---------14
Kansas--------------6----------16
Mississippi----------6----------17
Colorado-----------9----------26
Connecticut--------7----------21
Oregon-------------7----------21
Minnesota---------10---------30
Oklahoma---------7----------21
Alabama-----------9----------27
Louisiana----------9----------27
South Carolina----8----------24
Kentucky----------8----------25
Missouri-----------11---------34
Arizona------------10---------31
Tennessee--------11---------35
Massachusetts----12---------38
Maryland----------10---------32
Wisconsin---------10---------33
Washington-------11---------36
North Carolina----15---------49
Virginia------------13--------43
Georgia-----------15---------50
Indiana------------11--------37
New Jersey-------15---------51
Ohio---------------20---------69
Michigan----------17---------60
Pennsylvania-----21---------75
Illinois-------------21---------75
Florida------------27----------97
New York---------31---------115
Texas-------------34---------127
California---------55--------206
TOTAL------------538-------1712

A vote in California counts for 27% of a vote in Wyoming under the current system ie. there are four times as many people per electoral vote in Califronia than there are in Wyoming.

I have more numbers if people want them.

[The Meal]

Mr. Sparkle, I live in a small state. The candidates have been here *plenty* of times over the past few weeks and months. I'm done defending my position here as I don't really think we've got a dialog going, and I'm not much for a shouting match.

~Neal

[Dirt]

Neither Kerry nor Bush have visited CA much.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Pointer, in that system, candidates would just pander to their urban constituents and wouldn't bother with the rural folk. The current system requires candidates to take in consideration folks from all walks of American life.

~Neal

False. It requires them to pander to swing states.

You still dont get it. Under a popular vote format, THERE IS NO SWING STATE. They will spend all their time in L.A, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Tampa, Miami, and Orlando. Do you want swing cities? Your vote carries infinitely more power in an electoral college election, than it does in a popular vote one.

What about the the voters who are effectively disenfranchised by the winner take all vote that has a margin of victory of 300 votes.

And do you really identify with your state more than your political party?

How are they disenfranchised? Their vote counted, and had the conditions lent themselves in the right way, they could have been "the Florida" of 2000. As it turned out, their closeness in 2000, equalled a close 2004,and has gotten them alot of attention. I bet the Bush voters that got him the win there would disagree with your assertion that they were disinfranchised.

As to your question about my identity with respect to my party, I dont understand you. I am a Tennessee Democrat, who likes the system, even though I am in a fairly Republican state. I think I have more power with my vote, in an electoral system, than I would with your plan.

In the end their vote is meaningless. All the electoral votes go to the winner. That is effective disenfranchisement.

Ironrod is an example of someone who was disenfranchised by the sytem because he is in the minority in his(my) state. His vote would have more meaning if it was counted equally with other people who feel the same way he does.

My question is related to whether your vote is counted equally for your candidate of choice, or would you rather your state have more "power" relative to NY(which is a myth) even if they don't vote for your candidate.