Nothing like getting KoH all worked up, so let's look at the Electoral College and the path to the presidency.

Either looking at 270towin.com or realclearpolitics.com, Obama currently would hold the lead in states that are probably decided either 217-191 or 221-181.

Removing toss-ups and just going with current polls shows, according to realclearpolitics, reelection for Pres. Obama 332-206 (certainly an electoral beatdown that is far more distant than nation-wide popular vote will be, which I'd imagine will be +/- 4 points max).

It seems likely for Romney to win that he'll have to get both Ohio and Florida and either take almost all of the other swing states or steal Michigan or Wisconsin (two states that I think are likely to go for Obama).

Nationwide, Obama leads Romney in polls by about 3 points right now in popular vote.

So the question is: How much do we want to fluff and moan about the fact that unless you live in one of a handful of states, your vote basically means nothing because of the system in place?

Anyone actually think the Electoral College is a good idea after the recent elections where in 2000 the popular vote loser got elected and in 2004 and 2008 where only a few states actually mattered and most of us could have stayed home because our states already lean one direction or the other?

The electoral college should be tossed out in the trash. it is a relic of the past.

I fully agree, even though I think it benefits the party I favor this fall (and as I pointed out, screwed over the party I favor in 2000).

yeah, but if we are going to do away with the electoral college then you need to change the way congress gets voted in too.

I'm curious why that would need to be changed.

Currently, that's a popular vote of each congressman's (or woman's) district. The only part that's messed up about the way congressmen get elected is the gerrymandering of the districts, and I just don't see a very feasible way (other than perhaps making it a nonpartisan group that would set up the districts) to better do that.

Is that the reason you say this or is it something else about how congressmen are elected that you have a problem with?

Come out and play KoH......

After the redistricting, the electoral college is more favorable to Republicans than it was in 2000.

It is Obama 237 to Romney 206 in states that are all but already decided (I'm saying North Carolina is a lock for Romney and PA a Lock for Obama).

The big disadvantage that GOP candidates have is that they MUST win BOTH Florida and Ohio. Romney also must have Virginia.

After giving Romney Ohio/Florida/Virginia, he has 266 votes and must win one more state out of Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. I think Colorado is his best bet and should be very winnable. If he wins only New Hampshire of those states its a tie at 270.

The difference after the redistricting is that Bush needed 2 or 3 of Nevada/Colorado/Iowa/Wisconsin/NH to win while Romney needs 1. He got NV/CO/NH in 2000.

I'd agree with both NC and PA in general.

I think Romney's problem is that winning both Ohio and Florida and staving off any upsets is rough (especially considering by current polling I think it's more likely that some states would swing blue than red, but who knows)

Of course, one of the most important aspects every time is how motivated the electorate is.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

'nuff said

hehe

Does it matter?
The Pubs will have the House, the Dems will keep control of the senate by a narrow margin, Neither candidate is a Leader so the real power is in the congress with both houses blocking each other. Nothing will change for another 4 years except the Deficit will grow the economy will stay weak at best.

As for the Electoral college, I don't see what is the problem with the system. The winner of the state gets those votes how hard is it. Yes, an elector is not actually committed to vote the way the state voted, unless dictated by that States own laws, and even then it is the state law the controls what the punishment to the elector is for not voting as Pledged to; HOWEVER there has never been an outcome in the election that resulted in a changed result due to an elector not voting the way they pledged, not even in 2000.

Oceana: But there have been multiple instances where the person that received the most votes nationwide actually LOST the election due to the electoral college.

The idea that an elector might switch their vote is immaterial.

Furthermore, it also is a sucky system because it basically means there are a handful of states that really matter.

No one really seriously campaigns to try to win votes in California, because even if a Republican candidate convinced 20,000 voters to vote for him or her, they'd still lose the state by a huge margin.

No one really seriously campaigns in Texas for the same reason.

Same with New York and Illinois and most of the South.

The President of the United States is supposed to represent the entire nation, but in effect, it's really only about a dozen swing states that really matter, and to be more clear about it, it's really mostly the most populous "swing" states like Ohio and Florida that really matter.

Romney and Obama will fight over a few other states, like Iowa, Nevada and North Carolina, and probably a few more, where one of them is just making a token attempt to switch a red state blue or a blue state red (like perhaps Wisconsin or Pennsylvania). But ultimately, the President of the United States is most likely whoever wins Ohio.

@Twain: yep.
Not unless you get someone truly extraordinary running for president who can swing states for (or against them) due to their personality rather than their political affiliation. But I think that's still a ways off in the US.

Although what amazes me is how little Americans seem to understand how their government works or which branch of government is responsible for what.

My guess is if someone is able to convince, for instance, Washington state to go red or Alabama to go blue, there won't be an issue of whether the electoral college's flaws are relevant, because most likely everyone is voting for that particular candidate.

Sort of like a Reagan in 1984 electoral map.

The real kicker would be is if someone wins 51% of the vote, but only a plurality of electors due to a third candidate and ends up losing to the second place person due to the third candidate supporting the 2nd place finisher... I guess it's hard for that to happen these days though:p

Electoral college is the least of the problems of american democracy

You might have a solid point there, but if the guy you want to win were to win 51% and get 260 electoral votes (instead of the 270 needed) you might feel otherwise.

Either way, it's an outdated stupid system and I honestly do feel that it means that most candidates pander to the wishes and needs of about 5-6 key states each election, which IS a major problem for American Democracy. Being from a solidly blue state pretty much means that Democrats already know they've got my state so they don't have to try and Republicans aren't going to bother.

Part of this is for campaigning, which actually is quite nice, since we're not inundated with political ads like other nearby states are (I'm always amazed when I visit my brother who lives in Iowa anytime near an election). I'd also imagine Ohio and Florida get more attention when it comes to stimulus funds and other projects as well. No numbers to back that up, but it makes sense that Pres. Obama might have tried to get a few extra projects in and near Ohio when every 4 years it's one of the battleground states.

For real?
Do you live in the united STATES, we created a weak federal system for a reason, I really do not give a fluff about the person in Mass. any more then the one in Cal. It makes even small states important to win. To say no one campaigns for calif. ? Im guessing you dont pay attention, as yes cal is Dem by a few % not much more when a presidential election. And the only reason I can see problems about the current system is that it is very difficult for a 3rd party,
Numerous times we have had an election not be the popular vote?? for real I can cut off half my fingers on one hand and still count them on that hand, and it would still be so close that it wouldn't even be convincing that the declared winner didn't.

And No candidate panders to your wishes either way, which is obvious when you look at senate and House of rep elections as they are the system you think is going to fix something. They have there pockets lined with corp. money that is as much owned by foreigners as it is Americans they couldn't give a RAts ass whether or not you vote or have a job just as long ss some how you buy their BS, and their Sponsors products.

No how about a campaign law that requires a SS #, or Voter Register #, attached to the check and only money from people living within the district of the person running, so yes All US Registered Voters could send Campaign Money to the Candidate they support, an all congressman would actually get support from their own district instead of Saudi Arabia, China, Europe and everywhere Else that should not be involved.

Small states like Florida and Ohio?



Also true. A 3rd party candidate like Ross Perot back in 1992 could get 15% and still not get a single win. I'm not sure it makes a difference in the big picture, but it certainly shows a different story when you just look at an electoral map. And furthermore, we didn't create a weak federal system. If the states wanted to keep a truly weak federal system, they would have kept the Articles of Confederation. They adopted and ratified the Constitution which greatly strengthened the federal government, and of course, the balance of power has shifted more and more as time has passed towards a stronger federal government. Trying to go back in history over 200 years to show how we have a weak federal government is grasping at straws. Furthermore, other than a few states like, again, Ohio and Florida, how does this empower the states to be on the electoral college. I don't get why having a ridiculous system like the electoral college is a states' rights issue. The only time I see any of the small states really being empowered by these silly rules is during the primary season, and for all I care, the parties themselves can keep doing it the way they want.



So because it doesn't happen often we shouldn't care? (For the sake of being clear here, it has happened 3 times, Presidents Hayes, B. Harrison and Bush were all elected despite losing the overall popular vote--two of these instances, you might say that due to how long ago they were, the electoral college was a necessary evil due to the technology available for running an election, however in 2000 this obviously isn't the case. And no, this isn't any type of sour grapes. I'm not saying Gore should've been President. Bush won by the rules that were in place, even if those rules are, in my opinion, incredibly stupid).

Regardless of whether it happened once, three times or thirty times, isn't even once one time too many? We say we believe in a system where everyone's vote is treated equally, yet more people said they wanted Al Gore for President in 2000 than George Bush, and that didn't happen.



True to some degree. There certainly is far too much of a problem for both parties with different lobbying groups having the politicians in their pockets. At the same time, many of the biggest talking points about how stimulus money was spent seems to deal with Ohio and states that border Ohio. I don't believe this is coincidental.



Sounds good to me. I'd be curious what SCOTUS would think about the Constitutionality of that though, given the way that Citizens United ruling came out.

Oh, and I felt the need to check your claim that California is just a few % points difference in a Presidential Election:

I'll add a few more of the "usual suspect" states as well:

2008
CA - Obama wins, 61-37
TX - McCain wins, 55-44
NY - Obama wins, 62-37

2004
CA - Kerry wins, 55-44
TX - Bush wins, 61-38
NY - Kerry wins, 58-40

2000
CA - Gore wins, 53-42
TX - Bush wins, 59-38
NY - Gore wins, 60-35

So in the last 3 elections, CA has been won by Democrats by a margin of 11 twice and 24 points in 08. Republicans won Texas by 21, 23 and 11, and Democrats won NY by 25, 18, and 25. I'm sure I could find the same to be true with all the Deep South states going for Republicans as well. And there may be some token campaigning in California, but you bring up a good point with your campaigning for dollars idea--I'd imagine that's more about raising money than it is campaigning for votes, since there's a lot of wealth in Cali.

Had one more thought about the last one (sorry if it seems I'm beating a dead horse, but I thought I'd be thorough, and as mrford once pointed out to me, if you want to get a huge post count, you should never "edit" your posts, but just post a new one!)

RealClearPolitics has a list of "Solid Obama" and "Solid Romney" states, and several of the states I looked at were about a 7% lead for one of the candidates. So if 7% can be "Solid Romney" in S. Dakota, for instance, then 11% in California is a virtual Everest for Romney to have to overcome.

boo1

Gary Johnson seems like the clear choice for anyone who values liberty, freedom or the free enterprise system. How can fiscal conservatives expect Romney to repeal Obamacare when he was the original architect of this program in Mass.? It's nonsensical. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Candidate for president, would put an end to America's hyper aggressive foreign policy and veto domestic spending bills and pass the savings on to the taxpayer. It's time to put an end to the GOP and DNC's duopoly and support the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson for president.

Morons who know NOTHING about the structure of the electoral process should STOP posting and START researching how it works and why it was set up that way instead of howling about the way it appears at first glance, but then again, most of the MORONS only work with what they learn "at first glance".

no u r the moron

I would say If Gary Johnson won the Democrats and Republicans would finally start compromising on bills and work together to get legislature through as they would have a lot of vetoes to overide to get anything done.

Gary Johnson has no chance of even breaking 5% of the overall popular vote, so for this conversation, I'm ignoring him because any discussion of his presidency is about as hypothetical as a conversation centered around what I'd do if I won the lottery.

I honestly feel that the Republicans wouldn't have any real reason to try to obstruct Pres. Obama's agenda in a second term, since it seemingly was the goal of Republican Congressional leaders to ensure that Obama would be a one-term president.

So in that way, gridlock favored them, since the blame (or praise) tends to fall on the President in office at the time.

In a 2nd term, they know he isn't running again, and they don't have to worry about how Obama's presidency will lift Joe Biden, because I doubt even after being VP that the Democrats will put up Biden as their nominee in 2016.

I see a 2nd Obama term to possibly be similar to Clinton's 2nd term as far as the relationship between the White House and Congress (of course, I'm assuming there won't be a sex scandal and impeachment trial), where Clinton and Gingrich were able to work together to balance the budget.

You're a socialist Canadian, you support the Democrats (despite the fact you are in Canada).

Nuff said :p

I'm originally from, and still live in, Illinois.

And I wouldn't really consider myself a socialist for that matter either.

3:19 the time it took you to reply, IMPRESSIVE! Very biblical too, I've seen that in walls and bilboards haha.

Btw, I'm fkn with you, just wanted to see how long for your reaction <3

So because Obummer can't run in 2016 the Republicans are going to agree to be Socialists?
I doubt it.
and I don't see O becoming suddenly agreeable, nor the dems, they couldn't even agree with themselves to past budget measures when they had a monopoly in the congress. they sure has hell aint going to start now.
Think the Mideast has pretty much finished O though unless he suddenly finds a pair between his legs.

I LIKE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. SINCE I LIVE IN WASHNGTON STATE, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM MEANS THAT I CAN VOTE MY CONSCIENCE WITHOUT WORRYING THAT MY ONE VOTE FOR GARY JOHNSON HAD ANY PART IN SENDING OBAMA BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

HA!

SAM

KoH: John 3:16 is the really well-known one, but perhaps 3:19 is another one though.

3-19 is St. Joseph's day though, and that was my son's original due date, so it is kind of a cool number.

Oceana: The polls seem to say otherwise. Obama's still up by about 3.5 points and has a much better favorable rating than Romney.

Furthermore, what have been the big issues Obama's dealt with/tried to push through?
1) Health Care -- If there was a public option, you could certainly say it was socialist, but without the public option, I'm not sure you have a terribly strong case.
2) Higher taxes for the upper class -- Not a socialist thing, unless of course you want to claim Eisenhower's about the single most socialist President in our history
3) Raising the debt ceiling -- this had to be done. It was happening whether McCain or Obama had won.
4) Bailouts -- These are from-the-book Keynesian economics. Reagan, by the way, spent us out of a recession in the 80s.
5) Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- Civil Rights for gays aren't socialist.
6) Intervening in Libya to topple a dictator -- Not communist
7) Ordering the strike to kill Osama bin Laden -- Not communist.

I could go on and on forever like this, Oceana, but the fact of the matter is, you're most likely not going to change your opinion despite the fact that I've given you a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.

Ya, haha, 3:16 is the biblical one, very kool that 3:19 has importance in your life, maybe a sign?

Twain there is nothing listed that would convince anyone that O' will compromise if re-elected, he hasn't been willing to compromise for the past 4 years so why would anyone believe if he gets re-elected he will be willing to work with the other side.
both parties have no interest in compromising and as long as the believe they will be able to blame the problems on the other party, neither are trying to do anything for the country.
Sorry 4 years and I'm still waiting for Change to show up, the only thing thats changed in the whitehouse is the name of the idiot living there.

You clearly didn't pay attention to the news during the first two years of Obama's presidency. There were multiple instances on many larger pieces of legislation in which Obama was reaching out to the GOP more than his own party, which actually alienated some House Democrats away from Obama, because they wanted to go bigger on the stimulus and try to go for more reform on other bills.

Furthermore, the fact that the GOP has been known as The Party of No recently isn't just baseless propaganda.

Michael Grunwald of TIME actually has an article talking about how Romney will have to deal with the current congressional Republicans if he's elected.

The article chronicles how the Republicans decided that their strategy was to oppose everything Obama stood for simply to avoid being relegated to being a 2nd-tier party for the next 40 years, by trying to undermine Obama's abilities to actually change anything. Hence the rampant filibustering.

Beyond that, nothing on my list was designed to convince you that Obama will compromise, it was designed to refute that he's a socialist.

Please, PLEASE come up with a list of all the socialist changes the Obama administration has made.

KoH: It's amusing to me because I work at a Catholic school and I was talking with a priest that was doing one of our masses and he asked when the due date was and then said "Oh! The Feast of St. Joseph! How fitting!"

And I was completely baffled as to why that would be fitting and just kind of politely agreed. Later a friend of mine that teaches theology informed me that the Feast of St. Joseph is basically the Catholic version of Father's Day, since this particular St. Joseph is the same one that was the earthly father of Christ. It made much more sense at that point.

My boy ended up going late and 3-19 didn't end up being the actual date, but 3-19's kind of fun (especially since my b-day is the 18th, so he would've just been one day off from me).

Do you really concider there a difference between being taxed for the gov't buying you a product, or you being mandated to go buy it as one not socialist , oh thats right if I dont i recieve a punishment without any due process, so just screw our rights with it. But obviously you have some absurd version of a difference there.
and Yes I agree Romney is not much aligned with the bulk of his party, but I'm sure he will work with them to pass measures.
O' couldn't even get much done when alls he had to do is get 1 from the otherside to vote with them because the Dems weren't willing to give anything of compromise up to convince just 1 Pub senator to vote with them.
what was obvious those first 2 years was that Obama was still the boot politician who couldn't lead and the country was being ran by Reid and Pelosi, yes lets just pass the most expensive piece of Leg. in 60 years and not wait to read it.
after 4 years its still questionable if he can lead at all.
while the pubs are FU. They atleast are not the totally inept leaderless group that the Dems are.

Socialism/Communism are when the government takes over (most of the time through taking public ownership) of the means of production.

Now, in a more modern sense, I'll agree that "the means of production" probably isn't the best phrasing anymore, since fields like health care are really more about maintaining health than creating products, so don't think I'm making that argument.

This ACA may have moved health care more towards a socialist handling of that particular issue, adding more regulations. However, the health care industry in our country is still all about several different companies trying to provide health care in a competitive market.

In fact, if there's anything that prevents competition, it's the silly state-by-state rule that if I recall correctly, was originally one of the ideas they were trying to get rid of, but I don't believe they did.

Also, I love when people that side with Republicans complain about their rights being infringed upon. Both parties infringe on our freedoms all the time. Unless you were a loud voice of dissent on all the anti-terrorism measures passed in the 2000s by Pres. Bush, like the Patriot Act, then you have no ground to stand upon for your "they're taking our rights away!" argument.

And I'm not even debating you on the whole lack of compromise issue until you bring up a single law or bill that was brought to the floor without some attempt at compromise with the Republicans.

I've offered support for pretty much everything I've claimed. You just keep spouting off and seeing what'll stick without actually substantiating any of it. If you think I'm wrong, I may very well be, but prove it! Give me some evidence! I'm actually quite open-minded to the idea of there being some things that perhaps I didn't pay attention to or care about because in general it didn't go along with my world view at the time it happened.

However, I'm not going to change my mind just because you're repeating the same unsubstantiated anti-Obama rhetoric I could see by looking at silly email forwards or conservative facebook pictures.

twain sucks

I'm moving to Canada, literally.

yeah!

Haha, very kool story, i got kicked out of a catholic church right before a huge annual soccer tourney was about to kick off, needless to say my entire team left as a form of protest and we entered another tourney instead, me and my big mouth haha

I hope not because you're trying to avoid Democratic policies....

as long as obama loses, i dont care how we elect the next person

LOL ^ i take it hope and change didn't work out for you neither haha

Also, I love when people that side with Republicans complain about their rights being infringed upon. Both parties infringe on our freedoms all the time. Unless you were a loud voice of dissent on all the anti-terrorism measures passed in the 2000s by Pres. Bush, like the Patriot Act, then you have no ground to stand upon for your "they're taking our rights away!" argument.

Yes and as such I go and vote trying to remove those who pass it fools, Unlike them Dem voters who even though the newest renewl of that act, was done with a Fully controlled house and a 59-41 Senate, and the presidency, just keep voting to re-elect those same people while still blaming the other side for it.

Romney/Ryan 2012

The entire system needs to be scapped and replaced. Money needs to be removed from the campaign process. What America needs is LEADERSHIP, not politicians.