1. President Obama will not win any states he didn’t win in 2008.The biggest undecideds are Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio which represent 67 electoral votes. There was a GOP rout in all three states in 2010. It would be hard to imagine them going for Obama unless there is significant improvement in the economy. If the GOP holds the states that are solid GOP and wins these three, it's over. 273 electoral votes wins it.
2. North Carolina and Indiana are gone for the Democrats. Indiana was a fluke — due to proximity to Illinois, lack of enthusiasm for McCain, and the economic panic. North Carolina was won by a scant 14,000 votes against a demoralized GOP. Both states will go red this time around.
3. Virginia is traditionally GOP-friendly, but has been trending purple. Also, there’s been a huge influx of money and power and more money into the Northern VA ‘burbs around DC. That helps the state’s economy (at the expense of the rest of the nation), and makes Virginia a tough state for the GOP to pick off of Obama’s 2008 column.
4. Obama put together an amazing ground game in the Mountain West last time around, and intends to rally Latino voters to do it again. The region should be all-red, given the state of the economy and Obama’s negatives — but a billion dollars can buy a lot of ground game.
5. There’s a wave of disgust and despair in the industrial Great Lakes and Midwest. I believe this wave hurts both parties, making the region the battleground for 2012.
Friday, August 05, 2011
What's the Electoral College Map Looking Like These Days?
Stephen Green has been looking at the numbers. You can see his map here in which he sees Dems with a solid 186 electoral votes and the GOP with 206. He adds these five rules of thumb:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes-- 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The editorial by Anonymous is uninformed rhetoric by the left disguised as populism.
Please read the Federalist Papers. Therein you will find how the Electoral College was included in the Constitution of the United States - for the express purpose of electing the President and Vice President. The Cliffnotes version is that the popular vote (European ancestry landowner males back then) was a counterpoint to the Electoral vote. The purpose of the Electoral College was to more appropriately ensure that the states with low populations would be given an appropriate say regarding their concerns in elections, and not merely states with large populations.
So Anonymous, you believe that states with large populations should have more of a say in Presidential elections than states with small populations? You don't believe in fairness to the populations of ALL the states? You are not in line with the thinking of the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution. . . which would be, ironically, anticonstitutional if not unconstitutional!
And don't go wailing to the ACLU about it. . . read and study the Federalist Papers first. It might open your mind quite a bit.
Every time I post something on the Electoral College the same genius posts a lengthy diatribe about the National Popular Vote Bill that will never come to pass. Does anyone seriously believe a blue state like NY or MA will willingly give their electoral votes to a Republican who got the most popular votes nationwide but lost in their states? It'll never happen. The NPV bill is a fantasy.
The Electoral College is the set of electors who vote for presidential candidates. Under the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Post a Comment