• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Electoral Maps

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oliver

Penultimate Amazing
Oliver
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
17,396
Browsing several News-Sites each day, I wonder why there is
so much focus on the electoral map. Basically, the popular vote
decides the election, so why is the electoral Map even mentioned
and who tracks these "electors" of the Electoral College? :confused:

Electoral Maps:
http://pollster.com/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,578359,00.html
 
Electoral College
The Electoral College consists of 538 popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States.[1] In 2008, it will make this selection on December 15. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates[2] and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.[3] Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.
Click to expand...
WC
 
RandFan said:
WC
Click to expand...


I still don't get it. Where does the data for the electoral maps
come from? And if the electors will most probably vote based
on the popular vote anyway, why is it important at all to display
those maps?

In other words: If McCain would win the popular vote in a "landslide",
who cares if the electoral map before election day showed 500 electors
favoring Obama? It doesn't matter if the popular votes decides and
the electorate is just a formality.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Why not? The "first Monday after the second Wednesday in December" is
just a formality in which the electors go with the popular vote.
Click to expand...

It's not "just a formality."

It's where the actual election of the President takes place.
 
Oliver, in 2000 Gore won the popular vote. Of course, you knew that because you've been watching the Gore Administration in action over the last eight years.
 
Oliver said:
And if the electors will most probably vote based
on the popular vote anyway, why is it important at all to display
those maps?

In other words: If McCain would win the popular vote in a "landslide",
who cares if the electoral map before election day showed 500 electors
favoring Obama? It doesn't matter if the popular votes decides and
the electorate is just a formality.
Click to expand...

The popular vote does not determine how the electors vote.

Each state votes for its electors. The popular vote within that state determines that. So, State X could elect ten Republican electors (if its popular vote was more than 50% Rep.) or ten Democratic ones (if the popular vote was more than 50% Dem.).

In most states, it's "winner take all", so 51% of the vote in that state will give you 100% of its electoral votes.

You could have this scenario (with the USA trimmed down to three equally-populated states for simplicity):

In State A, the Reps get 54% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.
In State B, the Reps get 52% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.
In State C, the Dems get 95% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.

Overall, the dems get 63% of the popular vote, but lose with 33% of the electoral votes.

At least that's how I understand it- I'm not and American, and never heard looked at the system until the Bush 2000 fiasco.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
Oliver, in 2000 Gore won the popular vote. Of course, you knew that because you've been watching the Gore Administration in action over the last eight years.
Click to expand...


Mhmm, there seems to be confusion about the popular vote in 2000:

LightinDarkness said:
This is what you get from using about.com instead of peer reviewed sources.

In 2000 Al Gore did not win the popular vote when you correctly count the votes and remove people voting twice and other abnormalities, like the dead voting. 1888 is the last time this happened - although BOTH cases are heavily disputed by political scientists because they contained too much fraud to determine who actually won. And you are correct, I should have stated "in MODERN times" as it MAY have happened twice before.

For example, read:
Herron, M.C., & Sekhon, J.S. (2003). Overvoting and representation: an examination of overvoted presidential ballots in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Electoral Studies, 22(1): 21-47.

Source: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4150988&postcount=17
Click to expand...
 
Madalch said:
The popular vote does not determine how the electors vote.

Each state votes for its electors. The popular vote within that state determines that. So, State X could elect ten Republican electors (if its popular vote was more than 50% Rep.) or ten Democratic ones (if the popular vote was more than 50% Dem.).

In most states, it's "winner take all", so 51% of the vote in that state will give you 100% of its electoral votes.

You could have this scenario (with the USA trimmed down to three equally-populated states for simplicity):

In State A, the Reps get 54% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.
In State B, the Reps get 52% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.
In State C, the Dems get 95% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.

Overall, the dems get 63% of the popular vote, but lose with 33% of the electoral votes.
Click to expand...

I think you might also want to explain to him that different states get a different number of electoral votes.
 
Madalch said:
The popular vote does not determine how the electors vote.

Each state votes for its electors. The popular vote within that state determines that. So, State X could elect ten Republican electors (if its popular vote was more than 50% Rep.) or ten Democratic ones (if the popular vote was more than 50% Dem.).

In most states, it's "winner take all", so 51% of the vote in that state will give you 100% of its electoral votes.

You could have this scenario (with the USA trimmed down to three equally-populated states for simplicity):

In State A, the Reps get 54% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.
In State B, the Reps get 52% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.
In State C, the Dems get 95% of the popular vote, and thus 10 electoral votes.

Overall, the dems get 63% of the popular vote, but lose with 33% of the electoral votes.

At least that's how I understand it- I'm not and American, and never heard looked at the system until the Bush 2000 fiasco.
Click to expand...


So how is it possible to know the electoral votes if nobody knows
for sure the outcome of the "popular election".
 
Oliver said:
Don't blame me - I didn't make that [nowadays] stupid system up in the first place.
Click to expand...

You raise a good question.

Why do we still have the Electoral College here in the States?

IIRC, it was first instituted for efficiency's sake during a time when communication was extremely slow.

Now that we're in the age of mouse-click information, is it even necessary anymore?
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
I think you might also want to explain to him that different states get a different number of electoral votes.
Click to expand...


I know that - including the fact that Maine and Nebraska don't
have the "winner takes it all" system.
 
Oliver said:
Browsing several News-Sites each day, I wonder why there is
so much focus on the electoral map. Basically, the popular vote
decides the election, so why is the electoral Map even mentioned
and who tracks these "electors" of the Electoral College? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because the popular vote does not determine who wins the election, it is the number of electors committed to the candidate that does. The POTUS is not elected by direct plebiscite, but rather by the Electoral College, who are in turn elected at the general election. Each elector declares support for a party or candidate, and that is who is actually being chosen in the general election. Should the College fail to elect on the first ballot, each member is then free to cast a ballot at their discretion--a situation that has not occurred yet.
 
Oliver said:
Don't blame me - I didn't make that [nowadays] stupid system up in the first place.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with your lack of understanding? I didn't make up calculus. If I don't understand it that is my fault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom