26 responses so far ↓

• 1 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 5:28 pm

  so much for obama’s 50 state strategy.or is it 58?………obama claimed we had 58 states in the union……I guess he just forgot……..from all reports. obama has pulled out of several states in ads over the television.north carolina, georgia{the georgia thats above florida} louisiana, and a couple more {florida is probably next}…..there is a dramatic shift going on in the natl polls and now we see it in the state polls………remember the reagan landslide?……………{just a hunch} not a prediction……

• 2 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/09/comedy-gold-lefty-radio-hosts-crestfallen-as-palin-defended-by-mike-gravel/ this is a very good 9 minutes………I never thought id say it but here goes..GOOD JOB GRAVEL!!!!!!!!

• 3 Drew // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  Being in Nebraska, I think he is doing this in the hopes of helping Democrats in Nebraska and Western Iowa. Obama could lose Iowa which is why I think they have opened office here. The possibility of getting district 2 is just an excuse to do so.

• 4 Jack // Sep 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  In 2004, Kerry did about 5 points better in the 2nd district than he did in the state as a whole. McCain leads Nebraska by 14 points in the polls now, so based on those figures it doesn’t appear Obama is at all close in the 2nd district. It’s probably easier to make up ground in a small congressional district than it is an entire state, but the idea Obama could win this district seems like a reach, unless he wins in a landslide.
  
  270toWin: You are probably right. Back in May SurveyUSA did a Nebraska poll that showed Districts 1 and 2 basically tied (see far right columns), with McCain ahead by 9 points overall in the state. (Interestingly, they also asked the question combining McCain and Obama with prospective running mates, none of who were named Palin or Biden). Recent polls have that lead closer to 20 points, so it does appear unlikely at this time.

  As an aside, we don’t particularly care for this split electoral vote arrangement. Actually, it isn’t that we dislike the concept, it is that we think the rules should be the same for every state. Just like in 2000, when most people probably realized for the first time that we actually had something called the electoral college in lieu of the popular vote, we think there would be an equally big uproar if the election were to be decided by a split vote in Maine or Nebraska.

• 5 Jack // Sep 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  I wonder which party would benefit, if any, if votes were split by congressional district? What would the results have been in 2000 and 2004? I might do some research on this.

  Actually, a better (and probably easier to research) way to tell might be to see how many districts have PVIs favoring each party, as this would show how many districts each side would probably win in a perfectly even election.

• 6 Mike // Sep 14, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  The electoral college is essentially a two- vote bonus per state relative to a one-congressional-district-one-vote system (which seems prima facie better than what we have). In this election, the likely 30-20 state split means 20 bonus votes to the GOP. I have not looked at the polls on a congressional district basis, but I strongly suspect that the Dems would profit by a vote by congressional district.

• 7 Jack // Sep 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm

  Finally threw off my natural laziness and checked. About 35 more districts (I’m working on some other research and don’t really have time to count exactly) have Republican Cook PVIs than Democratic. This includes at-large districts that comprise entire states that have three electoral votes.

  Liberal urban districts tend to be more Democratic than conservative rural districts are Republican. There are about 30 districts that are more Democratic than the most conservative district (UT-1). So to even things out, there would have to be more districts that lean Republican.

• 8 mark // Sep 17, 2008 at 9:32 am

  look at the elections with an eys on state’s counties..bush beat gore 2 to 1………thank god for the electoral college…..why should elections be decided by just the big states?……….you could just forget places like north dakota and just campaign in california, texas new york….

• 9 Fred // Sep 17, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  Mark, how is that really different? It still basically is campaign in the states with a lot of electoral votes. How many trips are made to the Dakotas, Maine, Wyoming, Idaho, Rhode Island or any other small state? Either way it comes down to the close states with larger populations. When I get a chance I’ll see if I can find the article I read not too long ago that showed that the money and visits in recent presidental elections are mainly in the states with higher electoral vote counts. I don’t buy the argument that small states are really better off with the electoral college since they seem to get ignored anyway.

• 10 Bill // Sep 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  As an easterner I just don’t understand what makes our brethren out west click. It would seem to me these voters would ask themselves a basic question: has your economic status improved or gotten worst under the republican’s reign over these past 8 years. If the answer in NO, then why in hell would you vote for McCain. I just don’t get it. A couple friends that attended college with me move out there back in the early eighties and after being out their five or so years, they were transformed into these “rigid” conservatives that I hardly recognized. I guess there is something in the “air” out there that lead you to vote against your self-interest.

  Well, sorry to rant here and please accept my apology if I offended anyone.

• 11 Jack // Sep 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  Fred, it is true that the candidates don’t bother with small states like Wyoming and Rhode Island. But they don’t do much in big states like Texas and California either. Rather, they focus on swing states. For example, Barack Obama has no campaign offices open in New York (31 EVs), and about ten in tiny New Hampshire (4 EVs). I haven’t checked but assume McCain has similar numbers.

  Both campaigns are working hard to win small states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, and when polls were close in Montana and North Dakota, Obama made a significant effort there.

• 12 mark // Sep 17, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  fred..my point was that.I was trying to defend the electoral college……and thanking god because we dont elect by popular vote……..its the fairest way…..what I would change is the winner take all position………..It would be more representative of the will of the people if we just decided by a majority of counties won…………I could be all wrong on this………….any thoughts?

• 13 Fred // Sep 17, 2008 at 10:25 pm

  I would like to see some kind of proportional split of the electoral vote. I don’t like the idea that someone could win California by 1 vote and get all 55 votes. Another thing I don’t like about the elecotral college is that it basically keeps us with a 2 party system. The only thing a 3rd party candidate can hope to acomplish is to send the election to congress. I wouldn’t mind more options since both parties pretty much suck right now, at least in my opinion. I don’t like or trust either candidate. I don’t believe change will come no matter which one is elected. So basically my vote will be against one instead of for the other.

• 14 William // Sep 18, 2008 at 11:32 am

  A two party system isn’t so bad. At least we’re not England where members of Parliment get tarred and feathered if they don’t vote with the party.

  Like they taught us in 12th grade, eventually one of the major parties will adopt the minor party’s platform or issue. While that stinks if you’re a member of the minor party, the bright side is that the reform will ultimately prevail in some way.

• 15 mark // Sep 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  follow the money……….thats how elections are shaped…….for republicans its big corp. for the democrats its trial lawyers and hollywood tree-huggers

• 16 alex // Sep 22, 2008 at 2:52 am

  Im going to summarize why the electoral college is flawed(applies really if we have more than 2 major parties down the road)
  Senario:.. 4 Candidates. Only candidates 1,2,& 3 win various states and receive electoral votes ; candidate #4 receives none BUT is ALWAYS in second place in every state. Theoretically, being in 2nd place in every state could make you FIRST in popular vote.
  Result:#4 could never win the election even tho he may win the popular vote & the election could be decided by the house.
  Also, I dont like the fact that you can win a state narrowly and take all the votes. It discredits the other people who voted for candidates, perhaps 2,3,4 more.

• 17 Jeffrey // Sep 22, 2008 at 3:06 pm

  Mark-

  Going by a majority of counties is probably one of the worst possible solutions. It would be like having a vote with each state having one electoral vote but with even more difference between how much a vote matters in the most and least populated areas.

• 18 mark // Sep 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

  jeffrey…..why should a vote in california be worth more than a vote in missouri?………and if you go by counties it would clearly show the states preference……….the states wouldnt get a single vote…………each county would get a vote…….take the state out of the picture……..

• 19 Jeffrey // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:43 am

  Mark-

  Say X County has 100,000 people/voters and Y County has 1,000,000 people/voters then if each county is counted as one vote then a person’s/voter’s vote in X County is ten times more influential than a vote in Y County. To give each person/voter an equal say you’d have to give Y County ten times as many electoral votes or equivalents. That result can even happen internally within a state, especially the large ones.

  Also if I understand your proposal correctly you would determine the national not the state results through this method. That is not a good method because the State of X could have ten times as many people as the State of Y but the State of Y might have three times as many counties as the State of X. In that scenario fairness seems to dictate that the State of X should have ten times the influence of the State of Y but instead the State of Y would have three times the influence of the State of X.

• 20 Daniel // Sep 30, 2008 at 11:53 pm

  Of course Mark is in favor of using counties to determine who wins a state: he’s figured out that it would benefit Republicans. Rest assured that if it benefitted Democrats he’d be against it. But such a strategy would effectively disenfranchise anyone living in a city; since urban counties tend to vote Democratic while rural counties tend to vote Republican, such a move would obviously be a benefit for Republicans.

  People are talking about how votes in County X would be worth more than votes in County Y if County Y had a population ten times bigger than County X. This is certainly true, but the problem is far, far greater. The most populous county in the United States is Los Angeles County, CA (pop. 10,363,850). The least populous is Loving County, TX (pop. 67…seriously). If we just looked at who carried each county and the candidate who carried the most counties because president, a vote in Loving County, TX would be worth a staggering 154,684 times more than a vote in Los Angeles County, CA. I don’t see how anyone could support such a system if they had any semblance of fairness.

  The other problem with this system is that states can split or merge counties as they see fit and the government has no say in the matter. So if, for example, New York decides they want to have more say in presidential politics, they simply split every county in two. New York instantly is twice as powerful in presidential politics, and the only thing states could do to prevent it would be to split their own counties. That way lies madness.

  Finally, there’s the obvious question of what to do with cities in Virginia (by state law, cities can not be part of a county) and Alaska (which has no counties, nor any equivalent thereof).

  The idea simply does not deserve serious consideration.

• 21 Jeff // Oct 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  I just voted today after registering at the Election Commission office at 225 N 115th St (south of West Dodge).

  I voted Obama

  Early voting for the Win
  Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

• 22 Victor // Oct 6, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  Jeff,
  Thank you! I want to make it clear, I don’t hate McCain but there’s so much going on with the economy and it all stemmed from Republican leadership in the WH. I thank you sincerely for voting for change!

  - Vic

• 23 Paul // Nov 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  Voting by counties isa bad idea. Sparsely populated areas would be over-represented. Also, states could just create more counties to get more votes. The real debate is whether to vote by **congressional districts** which each represent roughly the same number of people.

• 24 Tasha // Nov 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm

  Get real!!! I definitely don’t want 4-8 more years of Republican economics…Reganomics…Bushenomics…or whatever you want to call the lack of vision and fairness plan the Republicans have been pushing. I do not want another half dead relic making these limited in vision decisions for me. If you are really voting the issues and not deep down trying to uphold the stodgy “Caucasian Only” mentality then you can only logically vote Obama. I think there are more “closest racists” than originally thought. Sarah Palin…as V.P. or even prospective president in the event of the inevitable health failure of McCain is an absolutely absurd thought. She wants to go back to the “Old Reagan Days”. That sounds like a nightmare!!!

• 25 Matt // Nov 5, 2008 at 10:58 am

  So happy that all of the McCainiacs on this board are hiding in shame today.
  Mark…when Obama was refering to 58 “states” he was also including all territories and districts of the U.S. to include all three Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, America Samoa, and the District of Columbia. If only you would have paid attention in class when you were younger.
  I am a resident of Sarpy County, Nebraska and I am so happy that the 2nd Congressional District pulled out a win for Obama and he will receive that electoral vote as well. The rest of Nebraska should probably just move to Kansas to join the rest of their racist friends and family.

• 26 Jamie // Nov 8, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  In the land that’s been RED all these years - literally and figuratively - that just voted down Affirmative Action - we JUST WON ONE Electoral Vote for Barack!!
  http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441

  So - there should now be one spec of blue on any red map of Nebraska - near Omaha. Baby steps. In a year that other red states went blue, this is our small victory.

Leave a Comment