Its pretty relevant. Without the electoral college states like Rhode Island, Alaska, and Hawaii would have virtually no say as to who the president would be. The electoral system allows them to participate and have an impact. The electoral system puts power in the hands of the states rather than the people.

Why should states matter? Does 1 person in Alaska not equal 1 person in New York?

Oops

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by bandbfan

I think the electoral college should be dropped by law. This is a free country, yet the people's actual vote is not what's counted. This makes no sense imho.

Yeah, our constitution does not allow the people to directly elect the president, but we do elect the electorates.

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by Casey008

Wow, lots of posts.

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by bandbfan

yeah, mine posted twice too...weird..

Yeah they do, but Alaska's 600,000 does not equal New Yorks 18,000,000. The issues that are important to Alaskans are not alwats equal to those that are important to New Yorkers.

If it were just between Alaska and New York persay...New York would be well represented every time, while Alaska would not.

States matter because were are actually a representative republic and not a democracy.

Its in the name...United States of America.

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by Casey008

Its called proportional representation, which I wish my country Canada would seriously look at.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4662774.ece

I can see where that is true by saying we're a republic. But nobody can say we're truly a democracy with the system in place. But in every other vote, senate, house, state, or local vote, the majority does rule.

I guess I'd have to see an example of the state vs. state thing.

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by bandbfan

I found a neat website where you can build your own electoral map.

I feel like the guy on CNN.

Check it out.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

Casey, you are right that Ohio is so very critical in this election. Simply put, McCain must win Ohio in order to win the election. (In fact, no Republican has ever been elected president without winning that state.) However, Obama still has several ways he can win without carrying Ohio. (For example, he can win if he carries both Virginia and Colorado, or if he wins Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.)

Also, my hope is very close to yours! Personally, what I am hoping for--and actually believe could happen--is that McCain carries all of the toss-up states except for Iowa (along with the Safe and Lean Republican states). This would result in McCain winning 283 electoral votes to Obama's 255.

Below are my opinions regarding the eight toss-up states I identified earlier:

COLORADO: This is a state that I am very worried about, since it has trended so Democratic in the last couple of years. However, as of this moment, I predict that McCain will pull out a narrow victory here because (1) Obama is far more liberal than the Democrats who actually do win statewide elections here, and (2) McCain is not an advocate of religious conservatism, which happens to be unpopular with this state's swing voters.

IOWA: Out of all of the toss-up states, Iowa is the state that is most likely to vote for Obama. That's because this state has a history of voting Democratic in recent elections (despite the fact that Bush narrowly won Iowa in 2004, Dukakis actually carried the state in 1988), and because Obama did so well in this state's caucuses.

MISSOURI: I consider this the toss-up state most likely to vote for McCain, given the fact that the state is home to so many social conservatives (who could never vote for Obama). However, if the black turnout in St. Louis happens to be at an all-time high on election day, then Obama could very well score a narrow victory here.

NEVADA: While Nevada is truly split down the middle between McCain and Obama, I actually think that--out of the three southwestern battleground states--this is the one that is most favorable to McCain. Certainly, the Democratic trend in this state is not as strong as it is in Colorado (or Virginia, for that matter).

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Although this is the only one of the eight toss-up states that voted for Kerry in 2004, I actually think that McCain will pull out a narrow win here (despite the fact that Democrats have made so many gains in the state over the last decade). I feel this way because (1) McCain himself has proven that he is well-liked in this state, and (2) the Clintons are extremely popular in New Hampshire (which could result in a backlash against Obama).

NEW MEXICO: While New Mexico has traditionally been one of the least Republican states in the western United States (apart from the Pacific Coast states), I actually feel McCain has the edge here because Obama is still having trouble with Hispanic voters (which I believe comprise over a third of all voters in this state).

OHIO: There's no doubt about the fact that Ohio has been trending Democratic in recent years. (The poor economy in this state certainly does not help the Republicans.) Yet, Ohio is packed with the white, blue-collar voters who are turned off to Obama. While this also holds true for Michigan and Pennsylvania, Ohio has more Republican strongholds than either of those other states. And, social conservatism plays considerably better in Ohio than it does in either Michigan or Pennsylvania. As a result of these factors, I actually think that McCain will carry this state by a razor thin margin (while meanwhile, I simply cannot rate either Michigan or Pennsylvania as a toss-up state).

VIRGINIA: Truth be told, no state worries me more than Virginia. (While, as I earlier stated, Iowa is the toss-up state most likely to vote for Obama, it is the state of Virginia that has considerably more electoral votes.) Until the last several years, Virginia was one of the most Republican states in the country. However, what has happened is that so many liberals from Maryland and DC have moved to northern Virginia, turning that area into an absolute Democratic stronghold in the process. In fact, because of the heavy concentration of Democrats in the northern part of the state, Virginia now has a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator (and will soon have another Democratic senator as well, since the party is easily expected to win the senate seat being vacated by John Warner). Nevertheless, I am still holding out some hope for McCain in this state, simply because Obama is far more liberal than any of the Democrats who have won a statewide election in the recent past.

I might have to change my mind about the state that worries me the most. I am now worried about Colorado too! More so than Ohio. Most sources have McCain in the lead in Ohio while Obama has taken a large lead in Iowa, enough to make it a lean Obama state.

Now according to the map I have built, if polls turn out to be correct, McCain MUST win the close race in Colorado. McCain has to win Colorado if Obama wins Iowa and NM which are both lean Obama states now.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

Casey, you could not be more right about Colorado: I really think that whoever wins Colorado will win the election. Unfortunately, I feel that Obama currently has the edge in CO (in large part due to the fact that he is spending far more time and money there than McCain is).

Although this is just mere speculation, I am beginning to think that the final outcome of the election could very likely be a 269-269 electoral vote tie between McCain and Obama. Here's how I think this scenario could happen:

In 2004, Bush won the election with 286 electoral votes. One state that he did not carry was New Hampshire, which I believe that McCain will narrowly carry this time. Because NH has 4 electoral votes, our total is now up to 290.

Unfortunately, there are two states that Bush won in 2004 that I don't think McCain will carry: Iowa (7 electoral votes) and Colorado (9 electoral votes). Subtracting these 16 EVs from 290 now leaves McCain with 274 EVs, which is still enough to win. Yet, I also believe that McCain will lose one of the two other southwestern battleground states--Nevada or New Mexico--as well. (Note that Bush carried both NV and NM in 2004.) Since either of these states has 5 EVs, McCain's electoral vote total would shrink to 269. Of course, Obama would also have 269 electoral votes as well, given the fact that a total of 538 are available.

This 269-269 tie would be nothing short of a disaster for the country. (Indeed, it may even cause the 2000 election to look tame by comparasion.) That's becuase the House of Representatives would then have the responsibility of choosing the next president (while the Senate would decide who becomes vice president).

Before I continue, it is important to note that it would be the newly elected House (as opposed to the current House) that will determine the presidential election winner. Of course, since everybody expects the Democrats to retain control of the House (as well as the Senate), it sure looks like a 269-269 tie would result in a win for Obama.

However, even with a Democratic House, an Obama victory is not 100% guaranteed. That's because the procedure the House follows is not a straight up-or-down vote. Rather, the House delegations in each state hold a vote, and whoever wins is proclaimed the winner of that state; then, each state gets one vote, and whoever wins the most votes (i.e., the most states) becomes the next president.

Unfortunately, there are two complications that still could arise under this scenario: First, it cannot be assumed that each Republican in the House will vote for McCain and that each Democrat in the House will vote for Obama. That's because there may be Republicans who would choose to vote for Obama (and Democrats who would choose to vote for McCain) in the event that their own Congressional District vote heavily for Obama (or McCain, in the case of Democratic House members). (The reason why a Republican Congressman from a district that heavily voted for Obama would choose to support Obama would be due to the fact that a vote for McCain could cause the Congressman to lost his next race for re-election.)

Secondly, even if you assume that all House Republicans will support McCain (and all House Democrats will vote for Obama), a major problem will arise if a state's Congressional delegation is evenly split between the two parties. To be honest, I do not know how this state's "vote" would be counted (in the final tally where each state gets a single vote, and the candidate who wins the most states becomes president). Perhaps that state's vote would be forfeited, but that unfortunately creates the problem of disenfranchising all of the residents of that particular state.

I'm sorry for this long explanation, but I just wanted to explain how truly complicated it would become if the House ends up deciding the next president. Hopefully, the 269-269 electoral vote tie will not happen, and the country can avoid this chaos.

This is rather interesting and different way of looking at the electoral votes. Done by Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000261611

Well if the vote is tied, 269-269, it's pretty much guaranteed that Biden will be VP, since the Dems will have about a 10 person majority. Lol and if McCain was voted in by the house, that'd be an interesting relationship.

Edited October 5, 200817 yr by bandbfan

Because the stock market crash completely changed the dynamics of this campaign, McCain has decided to stop campaigning in Michigan. I applaud McCain for this decision, as I think it is a wise move on his part. However, I have always believed that--even before the stock market crash--it was virtually impossible for a Republican to win a statewide election in that state. (That's because Michigan is the most unionized state in the country, and because Detroit--which has a huge minority population--is home to a very powerful Democratic machine.) Therefore, I am very upset that McCain already spent so much time and money (about $8 million) in Michigan prior to last week.

Unfortunately, McCain is still foolishly spending resources in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin--three states that are just as hopeless for Republicans as is Michigan. As a matter of fact, because of this decision--and because he had already spent so much time and money in Michigan--I think that McCain has made a huge series of blunders in this campaign. What McCain needs to do is to focus all of his efforts on Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Yet, with the exception of Ohio, McCain has appallingly spent zero resources in any of these states up until now, carlessly assuming that they were "in the bag" (while concentrating most of his efforts on the lost causes of Pennsylvania and Michigan).

Edited October 5, 200817 yr by Max

I love the realclearpolitics.com website that Casey mentioned a few posts above. You can make your own map and look at past years and see pretty much daily (and sometimes more then that) changes in the electoral college from new polls.