How will the Electoral College go?

Ozymandius2011

How do you see the E.C. going?

The US President will be chosen by the Electoral College. Each state has a number of electors who vote for the President. If Obama/Romney wins the popular vote in a state their slate of would-be electors become the actual electors. 26 states have laws requiring electors to vote as their state does. However 24 do not and electors who defect are known as "faithless electors". In a close election they could hand the President to the candidate who won enough states to theoretically get to the winning 270 votes on the E.C. If it's 269-269 or noone reaches 270, then the House of Representatives chooses the President and the Senate chooses the VP.

Here is how I see things going. Here I assume Hurricane Sandy causes more apathetic (often Dem minority and poorer) voters to stay at home, handing some tight states to Romney such as NH:



BTW if you want to post a map do as follows: go to Realclearpolitics.com and select 'creat your own map'. Then after making it press Print Screen on your keyboard, opening MS Paint and paste. Then save and upload to a website like photobucket.com or imageshack.us.

BOHtox

That only New Hampshire is too tight to call as is Colorado. Romney needs them three and either Ohio or Wisconsin to become President

Conas

Imagine it ended up a draw lol? It's not out of the question.

Manic Moran

A draw would likely end up a Romney win, unless there are significant unexpected changes in the House.

However 24 do not and electors who defect are known as "faithless electors

In over two centuries, the amount of electors who have failed to elect as expected has been 11. At least one of those was a simple screwup, who voted for the correct party, but the wrong name. (VP's name instead of P's name). I would not consider a defection to be a likely occurrence.

Here I assume Hurricane Sandy causes more apathetic (often Dem minority and poorer) voters to stay at home, handing some tight states to Romney such as NH and Colorado

I don't much see a hurricane having great effect in colorado. Even NH is a tad North.

After playing with the RCP map, I'm thinking 279-259, Obama wins.

Ponster

This IMHO is the best that Romney can hope for, taking CO, FL and WI but losing OH and NH.

Ozymandius2011

Nate Silver on Fivethirtyeight.com has made this table showing how accurate the state as opposed to national) polls were in past elections. He found that when the average lead was 2%+, the leading candidate always won that state, whereas under that it was touch and go sometimes.

cristoir

We are less then a week away from polling stations opening so I though I'd ask who we all think is going to win and why? Could be interesting to see who was right in a weeks time.

By own thoughts are that Obama will take it. He's polling strongly in Ohio, New Mexico and Wisconsin which would give him 265 including his base of safe states. He's either leading or competitive in New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and debate ably North Carolina. Even if he doesn't take Ohio there are plenty of roads to victory whereas Romney can't really win without it. The electoral arithmetic is so much harder for Romney because his starting base is so much smaller.

If I had to call a tally I'd say 294-244 to Obama. Romney takes Florida and North Carolina, Obama takes all the remaining swings.

Brian?

I think Obama will shade it. The jeeps to china add looks like costing Romney big in Ohio, a lie too far.

Sandy has also been a positive for Obama as tragic as the storm itself was the federal governments response has been widely praised. Seeing Chris Christie praise Obama on Fox was beautiful. I wonder did he only go so far because he knew Romney was a goner and he's lining up for 2016.

Not long to go now at all!

Ozymandius2011

I am increasingly concerned the GOP will steal the election like they did in 2000 and 2004. Threats to arrest election observers in Iowa and Texas do not inspire confidence though the neo-Confederates who vote for that party will be delighted.

If the election is free and fair I think it could go 272-266 in the E.C. to Obama. Otherwise at least 284-254 for Romney if they steal Ohio. I think the GOP will want to ensure the fraud isn't too obvious so probably not much higher than that.

The popular vote could go either way and is too close to call. My slight suspicion is that it will go to Romney but not by anything like Gallup is suggesting. But this is because Romney is running up massive margins in the red states and is unusually strong in some of the Blue States.

I don't agree that Pennsylvania is in play, though I think NH is and Michigan will be closer than usual.

BOHtox

BOHtox wrote: »

That only New Hampshire is too tight to call as is Colorado. Romney needs them three and either Ohio or Wisconsin to become President

Meant to say Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado.

Ponster

BOHtox wrote: »

Meant to say Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado.

Looks like the latest polls suggest that Obama will take NH and Colorado with Virginia being real close.

Denerick

Nobody knows how this is going to turn out. The RCP average has the polls at a complete tie at this stage nationwide - unprecedented. The election is five days away. The Democratic wind that tore up much of New Jersey will benefit Obama as he has been competant and the Federal Republic has seemed to learn its Katrina lessons. Its also a handy reminder that big government can be a big source of good, despite the apocolyptic Randian vision of the inherently selfish Republican party.

Da Shins Kelly

Looks like it's going to be a close one. Depends on the turn-out really, I suppose. I think Obama will shade it in the end though.

Inquitus

A good days polling for Obama

Ozymandius2011

The early voting in Colorado still has the GOP ahead 37.8-35 with a 53.9% turnout. Bear in mind the totalvote in 2008 there was 78% so I think that will go Romney's way.

nagilum2

Obama by a whisker in the electoral college 270-268.

Romney wins popular vote by 1%.

Obama will get around 310, I don't think it'll be as close as the polls are suggesting.

Manic Moran

Obama will get around 310, I don't think it'll be as close as the polls are suggesting.

Interestingly, my guess of 279-259 Obama was working on the basis of a very narrow vote, if not actually a popular vote loss. Just a small percentage point swing in one or two large states can make a very big difference in the EC tally.

Corkfeen

I'm veering towards 285-290 in the electoral colleges for Obama.

Denerick

I made my own map but too lazy to save on photobucket and upload.

Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire to Romney.

Nevada, Iowa, Ohio to Obama.

Obama to win 277 to 261 and in the margin of error with the popular vote (Measured in the tens of thousands)

BOHtox

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The early voting in Colorado still has the GOP ahead 37.8-35 with a 53.9% turnout. Bear in mind the totalvote in 2008 there was 78% so I think that will go Romney's way.

What's the source?

edit:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/whos-really-winning-early-voting/264436/

Brian?

Denerick wrote: »

I made my own map but too lazy to save on photobucket and upload.

Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire to Romney.

Nevada, Iowa, Ohio to Obama.

Obama to win 277 to 261 and in the margin of error with the popular vote (Measured in the tens of thousands)

Same here. I see it far more likely right now that Obama will take Florida than Romney takes Ohio, and that's what it comes down to now: who takes Ohio.

Brussels Sprout

What is the logic of having the electoral college decide the election rather than a simple majority (especially when the number of votes is proportional to each state's population)?

Denerick

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

What is the logic of having the electoral college decide the election rather than a simple majority (especially when the number of votes is proportional to each state's population)?

The number of votes isn't proportional. Every state has two senate seats and at least one house seat no matter what. So North Dakota has two Senators as has California (3 electoral college votes versus 55 - do the math on how big the population differences are)

The benefit of the electoral college system is that it grants greater influence to individual states. There is a reason why nobody bothers campaigning in big states like California, Texas or New York, because they are solidly in either parties camp no matter what. This is why a state like Ohio with its electoral college of 18 is so important and why the election is at its most intense in places like Ohio and Florida.

A simple majority would probably have the net result of having candidates campaigning mostly in densely population areas, like cities and their suburbs. Instead of having Obama shaking hands with small town people in the arse end of Ohio he could just speak at huge rallies in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago. So the impact of individual states would be much less significant.

In any case, the popular vote/electoral college thing isn't all that important, its very rare for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college (Bar Gore in 2000 of course) But statistically it barely ever happens.

FootShooter

This election really isn't that tight, just the media playing it out to be so they get more viewers, by using national polls.

Obama is leading in Ohio(national poll average is 49% Obama and 46.6% Romney), and will most likely get Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Delaware too. I think he'll probably win Colorado as well, with Romney winning Florida and North-Carolina. Virginia is a toss up though. So my guess is that Obama will either get 290 or 303 depending on how Virginia votes.

Conas

FootShooter wrote: »

This election really isn't that tight, just the media playing it out to be so they get more viewers, by using national polls.

Obama is leading in Ohio(national poll average is 49% Obama and 46.6% Romney), and will most likely get Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Delaware too. I think he'll probably win Colorado as well, with Romney winning Florida and North-Carolina. Virginia is a toss up though. So my guess is that Obama will either get 290 or 303 depending on how Virginia votes.

It really gets so confusing, because the media is all over the shop. I agree that they're playing it out for viewership. Tuesday can't come quick enough to be honest. I just hope the Republicans can take defeat on chin if they get beaten.

Amerika

Romney 293, Obama 245.

Ponster

Amerika wrote: »

Romney 293, Obama 245.

Hmmmm... that seems almost impossible based on the polls. Can you post the map showing who wins what ?

Manic Moran

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

What is the logic of having the electoral college decide the election rather than a simple majority (especially when the number of votes is proportional to each state's population)?

In addition to the pretty good explanation by Denerick, there are two very important 'philosophical' things to remember.

1) POTUS is President of the United States, not President of the People of the United States. As the name implies, he's in charge of the workings of a federation of fifty individual little countries who have decided to work together for a common goal.

2) When I go to the polls on Tuesday, I am not actually voting for the President. I am voting in my State referendum which will determine which way my State's representatives will vote in the Federal conclave to determine who shall be the president of the united (small 'u') States

These concepts are what allows the fifty States to be treated as equals whilst also allowing some lee-way for the fact that some States are bigger than others.

In any case, the popular vote/electoral college thing isn't all that important, its very rare for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college (Bar Gore in 2000 of course) But statistically it barely ever happens.

Four times.
John Adams, 1824.
Rutherford Hayes, 1876
Benjamin Harrison, 1888
George W Bush 2000

Which comes in at just over 7% of elections. I wouldn't placing money on those odds.

The 1960 election is an interesting case study. The difference was only .2% of the popular vote, and JFK pulled 22 States to Nixon's 26. Final score was JFK 303, RMN 219.

Brussels Sprout

Denerick wrote: »

The benefit of the electoral college system is that it grants greater influence to individual states. There is a reason why nobody bothers campaigning in big states like California, Texas or New York, because they are solidly in either parties camp no matter what. This is why a state like Ohio with its electoral college of 18 is so important and why the election is at its most intense in places like Ohio and Florida.

Flipping this argument, can you not say that voters in roughly 42 states are in a way disenfranchised. For example I worked with a man from Georgia who would be described as a liberal. I used to joke with him that his vote didn't count in the presidential election since he was from such a red state.

Voters in the swing states in a way have far too much influence (and that's before even mentioning the early Primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire which is an argument for another day)

Individual states already have complete equal billing in the Senate which allows them to prevent the larger states passing laws that would be preferential to them at the expense of the smaller states.

Amerika

Ponster wrote: »

Hmmmm... that seems almost impossible based on the polls. Can you post the map showing who wins what ?

Take your map with Romney at 267, but give PA (where I live and Romney is making great strides) and IA to him... 293! OH and NH might also go R for a total of 315.

Ponster

Amerika wrote: »

Take your map with Romney at 267, but give PA (where I live and Romney is making great strides) and IA to him... 293! OH and NH might also go R for a total of 315.

I could use the same argument and say that Obama has closed the gap and might take Florida :-)

Based solely on polls, Romney won't get IA nor OH. Based on instinct I don't see obama winning OH yet losing PA.

Amerika

Ponster wrote: »

I could use the same argument and say that Obama has closed the gap and might take Florida :-)

Based solely on polls, Romney won't get IA nor OH. Based on instinct I don't see obama winning OH yet losing PA.

FL... Dream on LOL. In PA, outside of Phila, it's all about energy and jobs.. Obama's war on coal and indications that the EPA will recommend after the election they control permits and regulate fracking... Which will be embraced by Obama, would hurt PA in jobs and revenue. Landmark Legal Foundation is suing the EPA to get ahold of their recommendations before the election, and is being fought at every step. It think PA will surprise you.

Conas

The Wall Street Journal says Obama is holding the lead in the Florida and Ohio polls. His response to Sandy has been praised from both sides.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707604578095161409849422.html

Ozymandius2011

I think the NBC polls only have GOP-registered voters at around 28%, compared to 37% for Rasmussen nationally.

Manic Moran

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Flipping this argument, can you not say that voters in roughly 42 states are in a way disenfranchised. For example I worked with a man from Georgia who would be described as a liberal. I used to joke with him that his vote didn't count in the presidential election since he was from such a red state.

Not really. Being in the minority where you are is only a microcosm of someone who is in the minority at a national level. Some voters are not going to get what they want because they're outnumbered.

Voters in the swing states in a way have far too much influence (and that's before even mentioning the early Primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire which is an argument for another day)

On the plus side, though, the swing states are swing states for a reason, they tend to have a nice balance of the national population. Catering to the swing states will generally cater to a plurality.

Individual states already have complete equal billing in the Senate which allows them to prevent the larger states passing laws that would be preferential to them at the expense of the smaller states.

Right, so the EC is a nice balance between the total equality of the Senate, and the population-ratio based system of Congress. After all, there is only one vote for President.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Romney 293, Obama 245.

Can you give a state by state run down of that?

I genuinely hope you and your family are safe and sound after the Sandy carry on.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Can you give a state by state run down of that?

I genuinely hope you and your family are safe and sound after the Sandy carry on.

Thank you. I can only post from my iPhone currently. See my previous response to Ponster on his map with changes for the info you want.

Ponster

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Flipping this argument, can you not say that voters in roughly 42 states are in a way disenfranchised. For example I worked with a man from Georgia who would be described as a liberal. I used to joke with him that his vote didn't count in the presidential election since he was from such a red state.

You just described my boss (who also is from Georgia).

Would it not be more 'fair' if they kept Electoral Collage but got rid of the 'winner takes all' system so that Electoral votes would be shared depending on how the people voted to make 'reds' in 'blue' states feel less disenfranchised and vice versa?

cristoir

The notion that Romney is going to win Pennsylvania is complete GOP bluster. They do it at every election. They roll the bandwagon into the state with a few days to go and announce they are going to win the state. It is to give the perception they are winning, it get's people thinking "I mean if they can win in Pennsylvania they'll obviously win the election?" McCain campaigned in Penn on the Sunday before the election in 08 and still lost by 11 points.

Meanwhile the facts show Obama having every poll from that state since August. I'm still a little worried Obama may not win on Tuesday but I'm convinced he's taking Penn.

Ozymandius2011

cristoir wrote: »

The notion that Romney is going to win Pennsylvania is complete GOP bluster. They do it at every election. They roll the bandwagon into the state with a few days to go and announce they are going to win the state. It is to give the perception they are winning, it get's people thinking "I mean if they can win in Pennsylvania they'll obviously win the election?" McCain campaigned in Penn on the Sunday before the election in 08 and still lost by 11 points.

Meanwhile the facts show Obama having every poll from that state since August. I'm still a little worried Obama may not win on Tuesday but I'm convinced he's taking Penn.

Joe Trippi (Dem pollster) said on Fox a few days ago that if Hurricane Sandy suppressed turnout in Philadelphia it might put the state in play. The 2008 margin was around 620,000 and that was with an 11% lead. Around 370,000 have lost their electricity. Recent polls had Obama leading around 5% there. So assume an equivalent turnout to 2008 (Gallup thinks it will be lower even than 2004) and a 5% lead. That reduces the lead to 310,000 - lower than the numbers cut off. I think it could be in play. Also the machine batteries can only cope for for 2 hours at a time according to press reports, and paper backup is only around 25% of registered voters.

Denerick

Manic Moran wrote: »

In addition to the pretty good explanation by Denerick, there are two very important 'philosophical' things to remember.

1) POTUS is President of the United States, not President of the People of the United States. As the name implies, he's in charge of the workings of a federation of fifty individual little countries who have decided to work together for a common goal.

2) When I go to the polls on Tuesday, I am not actually voting for the President. I am voting in my State referendum which will determine which way my State's representatives will vote in the Federal conclave to determine who shall be the president of the united (small 'u') States

The above is in my mind the best reason to keep the electoral system the way it is. Outsiders sometimes forget but America is a federal republic (Or as Jeb Bartlett (!) said, 'there are times when we are fifty states and times when we are one nation...') Its also a pretty good model for Europe to follow should it ever go down the road of creating a Federal Republic. In that scenario Ireland would presumably have a similar number of electoral votes to New Hampshire, and Germany to California?

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

FL... Dream on LOL. In PA, outside of Phila, it's all about energy and jobs.. Obama's war on coal and indications that the EPA will recommend after the election they control permits and regulate fracking... Which will be embraced by Obama, would hurt PA in jobs and revenue. Landmark Legal Foundation is suing the EPA to get ahold of their recommendations before the election, and is being fought at every step. It think PA will surprise you.

Terror called and they want their catchphrase back.(drugs are also a bit sour)

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

FL... Dream on LOL. In PA, outside of Phila, it's all about energy and jobs.. Obama's war on coal and indications that the EPA will recommend after the election they control permits and regulate fracking... Which will be embraced by Obama, would hurt PA in jobs and revenue. Landmark Legal Foundation is suing the EPA to get ahold of their recommendations before the election, and is being fought at every step. It think PA will surprise you.

The only thing surprising is that there are people who think that using catch phrases like 'war on coal' substitute for rational arguments based in reality, when no such war exists.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interestingly, my guess of 279-259 Obama was working on the basis of a very narrow vote, if not actually a popular vote loss. Just a small percentage point swing in one or two large states can make a very big difference in the EC tally.

I think a lot of the pollsters will have egg on their face when the results are in unless they all tend towards Obama in the next few days.

Ozymandius2011

Apparently Ohio's results are going to be routed through a server in Virginia. In 2004 they were routed through one in Chatanooga Tennessee is a building used by the GOP. Hmmm.

nagilum2

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Apparently Ohio's results are going to be routed through a server in Virginia. In 2004 they were routed through one in Chatanooga Tennessee is a building used by the GOP. Hmmm.

Where were they routed through in 2008?

Ozymandius2011

nagilum2 wrote: »

Where were they routed through in 2008?

No idea but the thing is in 2008, the Secretary of State in Ohio was a Democrat, so it couldn't be so easily rigged against Obama. The SoS controls elections in the state.

Denerick

We all have our doubts about American democracy these days, but the USA isn't Zimbabwe.

nagilum2

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

No idea but the thing is in 2008, the Secretary of State in Ohio was a Democrat, so it couldn't be so easily rigged against Obama. The SoS controls elections in the state.

What about for Obama? Do you really think the Republicans are the only ones with nefarious intent???

Ozymandius2011

nagilum2 wrote: »

What about for Obama? Do you really think the Republicans are the only ones with nefarious intent???

All the e-voting companies are tied to the GOP: Hart Intercivic, Premier Election Systems (formerly the notorious Diebold), and ES+S. Former Diebold chairman Walden O'Dell promised in 2003 to do 'all in his power' to deliver Ohio's 18 electoral votes for Bush.

Former NSA analyst has proved massive GOP electoral fraud.

"A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected."

Also:

Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to pay him to rig election vote counts.

Rigged USA Elections Exposed - YouTube