Posted - 6/8/2012 8:50:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
That's what this presidential race has come down to.
That's the point I made earlier about the electoral college.
Because 42 states (including the District of Columbia) are already solidly red or blue -- Romney and Obama are concerned with voters in ONLY nine states:
"With so many resources focused on persuading an ever-shrinking pool of swing voters like those here in Nevada, the 2012 election is likely to go down in history as the one in which the most money was spent reaching the fewest people."
The battleground: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
So if you don't live in these states -- your vote has already been counted. That's what value the electoral college places on YOUR opinion.
Posted - 6/8/2012 10:17:14 AM | show profile | flag this post
Good point, etaoin...
Of course without the electoral college only three of those states would matter anyway. And without the electoral college there would be no red or blue states, just population centers which are l urban and tend to vote heavily democratic. Of course that fact has nothing whatsoever to do with your and others desire to eliminate the electoral college. Do away with the electoral college and all those people in the "empty spaces" no longer matter. I really do think that is the goal here.
Posted - 6/8/2012 10:44:51 AM | show profile | flag this post
And without the electoral college there would be no red or blue states, just population centers which are l urban and tend to vote heavily democratic.
So if urban areas skewed Republican, you would be fine with eliminating the electoral college?
Posted - 6/8/2012 10:50:16 AM | show profile | flag this post
I'm sorry, blackedtape...
but why would only three of those states matter?
Without the electoral college, ALL voters would matter. If you focused ONLY on cities or large urban centers -- you'd still miss enough of the population to swing the election in rural areas.
Instead of winning 270 electoral votes (which can be accomplished with just 15 or so states) you would have to win 50% +1 votes of the WHOLE country.
Without the electoral college, you'd have to campaign in all 50 states for swing voters.
You'd be forced to discuss regional issues across the whole country -- rather than how those issues play out in just these nine.
That's the way it used to be even in my lifetime. Richard Nixon visited ALL 50 states in a single campaign.
Back then, the population was evenly dispersed between rural and urban areas.
Today, most of the population is concentrated in urban centers and it's continuing that trend.
That's why a Democrat can win with just 15 states. Republicans are forced to win far more states to guarantee a win. And now, formerly rural states like North Carolina and Virginia are becoming urbanized and shifting them to blue states.
That will make it harder for a Republican to win the electoral vote. Right now, Romney has only about three routes to winning the electoral college -- and that's at the outside.
Oh, and it's not just these nine states.
With the electoral college system, Obama can zero in on two or three (Florida or Ohio for example) and hold on to the presidency. So Romney may simply try to focus on the same two.
If you don't live in one of those states -- your vote doesn't matter under the electoral college.
Posted - 6/8/2012 10:51:01 AM | show profile | flag this post
Ummmm, no beenthere
I said that was why OTHERS want to eliminate the electoral college. To me it is not about parties, it is about maintaining the basic idea this country was founded upon. The idea is that the United States is just that, STATES united together.
Posted - 6/8/2012 10:54:37 AM | show profile | flag this post
No votes have been counted and no one has won ANY states yet. Projections are just that, and until people actually vote we really don't know how things will happen. I don't think we should ever tell anyone their vote does not count.
Unless of course we did away with the electoral college, then all the voters in all the "empty spaces" could not overcome the voters in one New York borrough.
Posted - 6/8/2012 11:26:37 AM | show profile | flag this post
Oh and etaoin...
You just gave one of the best arguements for keeping the electoral college. You said exactly what I have been saying. Democrats are already focusing on the 15 states with the highest population, and the only way a republican can win is to get the rest of the electoral votes. In other words, as long as democrats can control the main population centers the electoral college is the only chance for republicans. I guess you revealed the real reason behind eliminating the elcectoral college. Which is what I have been saying all along. At least we can now agree on what the outcome would be if we eliminated the electoral college. Thank goodness it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it, and that would require the states ratifying it. I just don't see that happening.
Posted - 6/8/2012 11:34:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
Actually, blackedtape, no.
That's charmingly idealistic, but has no basis in modern realities.
Most people -- the vast majority of us -- make up our minds before a candidate is even named. The parties know that 70% of the voters in Oklahoma would vote for a road kill possum if it won the GOP nomination. They know that 60% of the voters in California will vote for a can of tuna if it won the Democratic nomination.
That's the reality of modern politics.
All that's left is the ever decreasing number of swing voters.
It used to be 20% of the voting population.
Now, it's closer to about 9%.
Part of that is the increasing dependence of the two major parties on an electoral state strategy.
Presidential candidates have quit talking about state specific issues -- except in those swing states with LOTS of electoral votes and a perfect balance of undecided voters.
So the campaigns focus on fewer than 10 states -- and only on the issues important to those 10 states.
States with large urban centers get more attention -- because you can reach more of those undecided voters needed to tip a state.
Rural voters and voters in solid red and blue states are ignored.
And the trend is only increasing in this direction because of the electoral college.
The electoral college has robbed you -- and likely your state -- of significance in this election. And it's only going to get worse.
And, because of the movement of population to urban centers -- the electoral college is beginning to heavily favor the Democrats, instead of Republicans.
Posted - 6/8/2012 11:42:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
I said that was why OTHERS want to eliminate the electoral college. To me it is not about parties, it is about maintaining the basic idea this country was founded upon.
That still makes no sense.
If it isn't about block voting by parties, which is EXACTLY what the electoral college votes represent--blue state, red state--and it's not about equal representation of each citizen's vote (popular vote), then what the heck are you talking about?
Posted - 6/8/2012 11:57:23 AM | show profile | flag this post
>>They know that 60% of the voters in California will vote for a can of tuna if it won the Democratic nomination.<<
Not just any can -- the label must swear that it contains no dolphin.
Posted - 6/8/2012 12:35:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
It is not about "block voting", blue or red states. Simply put, it is about placing value on all voters, even those in less populated areas. Straight voting, without electoral college, would mean that less populated states would have little or no value to a campaign. As it is now, every state has regional campaign offices, local campaign staff and every state participates in the election of the President. Abolish the electoral college and there would be no need for campaign headquarters in smaller states, and campaigns would focus all their efforts on the larger more populated regions. No campaign would spend money on a thousand voters when the same money can be spent on a million voters, unless those thousand voters represent electoral votes.
Look I have tried multiple times to explain my thoughts on this matter. Either I have done a terribile job explaining myself or you think I am wrong. Either way, it is fast becoming a waste of my time. I would suggest the next time you guys get control of all three branches then push through a Constitutional amendment. And then of course you will need to get the states to ratify it. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Posted - 6/8/2012 1:11:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
This nation was never intended to be
a pure democracy, which is what a popular vote would represent...along with the tyranny of the majority. Neither is what the Founders had in mind. The US was ALWAYS intended to be a republic in which the several states had a significant voice and were not dominated by a central government, and a representative democracy by which the people were constrained by the necessity of electing representatives.
The concept was that NEITHER the central government NOR the people could amass overwhelming power.
Until it can be shown that our governmental system is NOT the best on Earth, there is NO reason...except self-serving political resons...to change it.
Posted - 6/8/2012 1:37:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
I guess we're not the best because we've changed our system 28 times -- 10 before our system was even put in place.
Popular election of the president is by no definition of the term "pure democracy."
We'd still be a republic.
But we'd be a republic where every voter is equal -- rather than some being "more equal than others" as Orwell put it.
Blackedtape: eliminating the electoral college would require MORE attention on rural voters and voters in small states.
EVERY vote in the country, lumped together, would be what elects a President. Not just the votes in nine states.
Those offices in your state are by local supporters. They'd still be there. And they'd carry more clout. Your state and it's voters wouldn't be written off.
Right now, those nine states are what both parties have been focusing on since 2008.
You have campaign offices in your state. Maybe you've had them since back in the spring.
Since the Spring of 2009, money has been pumped into those nine battleground states -- campaign money and tax money. The campaign money is buying ad time. The tax money has been buying bridges, roads, improved education, job training.
Both sides have been making sure the tax money's going there and both sides are spending millions on ads taking credit for it.
As a result, those nine states have seen their unemployment rates drop faster than the rest of the country. Incomes are up higher than the rest of the country. It's easier to drive to work or school. More kids are getting to go to trade schools or college.
It's subtle, but that's what's been happening.
Because the electoral votes in those nine states count for more than YOUR vote or your state's electoral votes.
That's why we need to get rid of the electoral college.
Posted - 6/8/2012 1:45:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
You say 9
but it's more than that.
Michigan, Wisconsin are now toss ups. Latest POLL out of Michigan has it 46-45 ROMNEY.
Florida and NC are gone for Obama. They will vote Romney.
I also think Ohio and Virginia are gone for Obama as well, but I will leave them as toss-ups for now.
I just printed out your post and I'm going to hang on to it until election day to show you how wrong the libs are. Democrats are leaving Obama. (Check Mark Halprin)
Posted - 6/8/2012 1:52:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
You're guessing on how states are leaning...
not basing it on anything but wishful thinking.
Here's something else for you all. With a tight horse race across the country, but Obama holding a steady edge in the battleground states -- there's a chance shaping up that Obama can win the electoral vote even if he loses the popular vote this year.
That's what a lot of pundits are missing in the polling data.
Posted - 6/8/2012 2:04:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
Wait a second ES.
You mean Obama could LOSE the popular vote?
Why, just yesterday you called me stupid for not understanding the polls for saying Romney will win.
Now you say Obama could LOSE the popular vote?
The pressure must be getting to you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted - 6/8/2012 2:12:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
No, I never called a winner.
I have ALWAYS said this would be a close race.
YOU are the one saying it would be a landslide.
But I'm pointing out what you and a lot of pundits aren't seeing: The popular vote is close, but Obama has consistiently maintained a stronger showing in the swing states -- the states that are going to determine who gets the most electoral votes.
There's a mathematical possiblity that Obama could win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote -- just like Bush did in 2000.
And though I oppose the electoral college -- that's the vote that counts in selecting the President.
Posted - 6/8/2012 2:27:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Maybe you haven't "called" the winner ES
But your posts about the polls lead us to believe that you think Obama has it wrapped up.
Posted - 6/8/2012 2:28:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
Some people are just more hard-headed than others
I mentioned last evening the reporter who said the reason partisanism and acrimony are at such high leves is because left and right cannot agree on basic facts as thge starting point for disucssions.
etwink is worse than that. He thinks he's the only one who can possibly be aware of the facts.
Shows how moronic he really is.
Posted - 6/8/2012 2:31:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
I don't know who this "etwink" is, cruzo...
but I think you just described yourself to a t!
So, should I call you etwink as well as cruzo from now on?
Posted - 6/8/2012 2:54:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, and secondcoming...
I've never called the election, never said Obama had it wrapped up.
YOU are the one saying Romney will win in a "landslide."
I'm merely showing how that's not showing up anywhere except in your mind.
Posted - 6/8/2012 3:25:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I don't know who this 'etwink' is"
Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have responded.
Posted - 6/8/2012 3:26:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
You defend Obama like he has it wrapped up...
But I do believe Romney still wins in a landslide, based on the poor economy and Obama voters in 2008 who are leaving him, as referenced in the numerous stories I have posted.
The mood of the country is against Obama, whether you want to accept that fact or not is up to you. I know you can't.
But that's good, because the longer you stay in group think, the better.
Posted - 6/8/2012 3:36:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
I point out that the math simply is not there for a Romney landslide.
Posted - 6/8/2012 10:09:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
We go round and round
on this...and what really strikes me is that those arguing FOR the EC use phrases that those AGAINST it do.
"Simply put, it is about placing value on all voters, even those in less populated areas." Couldn't agree more. Count every vote. If the voters in one state go 51 to 49, count every vote. Don't let the one guy with the 51% end up getting 100%.
Seeing a 'whole lot of Red' or a 'whole lot of Blue' (counties) is no reason to award an entire state to a candidate a helluva lot of people voted against. (Remember the old line about MY State; it's Pgh on one end, Philly on the other, and Alabama in between)
"Abolish the electoral college and there would be no need for campaign headquarters in smaller states" Wrong. Obama won because the Obama camp (Plouffe) was convinced that a "Run Everywhere" was the way to do it. And it worked. They didn't friggin ignore small EC states like Colorado, quite the opposite.
(Trying to constantly butt in with the 'what the Founding Fathers' wanted is superfluous bullshit. John McCain is not the VP right now, and blacks and women voted in the last election, so let it go)
And NO, it would not take a const Amend to change this. There is nothing in the Constitution about HOW each state assigns its Electoral vote - that's entirely up to each state. Hence any state can change their Electoral system without any Constitutional Amendment. Maine and Nebraska split up their electoral votes - it's not winner-take-all. (Each Congressional district elects one representative to the Electoral College based on the majority vote in that district.) It's not perfect--but it beats 'You won by ONE VOTE--The WHOLE State is yours!!'
So we agree to disagree. I just for the life of me can't figure out why 'The voters voted this way--here are the numbers--'...why isn't that good enough?