Comments on: Hillary vs. Rudy Head-to-Head Update

By: admin

admin — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:34:30 +0000

Dan20… you asked a good question about the point of the electoral college. The short answer is that, rightly or wrongly, the drafters of the Constitution (i.e., the Founding Fathers) set up a system where the people don’t vote directly for the president. They vote indirectly for Electors, who then cast the votes for that state. So, essentially the presidential election in this country is 50 individual state elections (plus Washington DC).

There are several reasons it was set up this way, but the primary one likely centered around the concept of balancing the individual rights of states (many of which had different interests based on geography, history and industry) vs. the powers of the central goverment of the new United States.

In today’s world, the electoral college structure gives smaller states a voice that they would not otherwise have — what candidate running today would ever visit Kansas or Iowa, or care about (for example) farm issues important in those states if it was purely a popular vote contest? Something might be lost if the candidates only visited New York, California, Florida and Texas and advertised on national TV — which is what would happen if we went to a popular vote.

However, that is just one opinion, and many others thing the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. Time will tell….

By: Dan20

Dan20 — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:42:40 +0000

Wut is the point in the electoral college if the people in the country should be the ones voting on who is the president? Im only in the 8th grade so dont write anything that i wont understand please.
thank you

By: admin

admin — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:09:33 +0000

You asked if there is any truth that historically a certain state must be won in order to be elected. The answer to that depends on how you are looking at it. From a pure mathematical perspective, the answer is no…. there are plenty of way to cobble together 270 electoral votes. That said, the last couple elections have seen only about 10-15 states that were really competitive on election day…. with the deep south and mountain west all red, and the northeast and west coast mostly blue. If those trends continue in 2008, then that leaves a few states as really pivotal, particularly PA, FL, & OH with their 20+ electoral votes. Although some of the trends in 2000 and 2004 will hold this year there will likely be more changes… but it is really going to depend on who the candidates ultimately are.

In terms of getting it right, Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio voters have sided with the winner in each of the last 10 elections, so seeing how these states are leaning might be a good indicator on how things will turn out.

By: tom

tom — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:42:00 +0000

is there any truth that historically a certain state must be won in order to be elected?

By: admin

admin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:06:29 +0000

Honestly, splitting ME and NE was a programming nightmare…not because of the split part, but because of the interaction with some of the other products on the site (the stuff below the map). We may try and bring it back later on. Also, we are probably going to offer some stand-alone maps for sale in the next couple months, and we’ll include it there, as it is easier to manage in a map-only situation.

If there is a viable 3rd party candidate, we will add that in some manner. Note that no 3rd party has won an Electoral Vote since 1968. Even Perot, who got about 19% of the vote in 1992, and may have influenced the overall outcome of the race, didn’t win any states.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:39:12 +0000

Why did you get rid of the ability to split ME and NE? If Bloomberg ran, he likely could have an effect on those 2 states.

(You should add the pos. of a 3rd party candidate!)