Wasn’t it Humphrey in '68?
If I’m not mistaken, one could actually win the presidency with 99.9999999999% of the vote against you. If only one person voted in each of the 11 states necessary to provide a majority of the electoral college, and the entirety of the registered voters in the other states voted the other way, 11 votes would get you in. Of course, this exaggerates the point, but you get the point that turnout and votes in certain states can easily outweigh things going the other way in all the other states.
I’m not exactly sure how electors are chosen (with apologies to my 11th grade history teacher). Would the vote of one person be binding on all the electors from the state, or are there “districts” or some such?
First off- shameless plug. I’m offering money (okay, a Best Buy Gift Certificate) to the person who most accurately predicts the results of the election. You have to register with your vote by tomorrow, though. Check out John’s Election Challenge thread in IMHO.
That having been said:
johnson asked:
With the exception of Maine, you vote in November for a slate of electors who run on a state-wide ballot. For example, here in Maryland, my vote for Bush would really be a vote for 10 specific Republican electors, who, if they receive the plurality, would go off and cast all of their votes for Bush in the Electoral College. Maine has two slates of electors, one electoral for each of two districts, and then two electors running on a state-wide slate.
Of course, “binding” is a relative term; you’re electing the elector, not the candidate, and there’s absolutely nothing preventing an elector from official casting his vote for the other party. Nothing other than never being trusted again by his party, that is; and given that most electors are long-standing party members and activists, it’s generally unlikely for an elector to change his or her vote should it actually matter. (Though, when it doesn’t matter, votes for other candidates have occured- a few Republican electors in '76 threw their votes to Reagan instead of Ford; a few Democratic electors in '60 threw their votes to Byrd instead of Kennedy.)
In fact, to take the “win with X votes” to the ultimate extreme, one could win the Electoral College with absolutely no popular votes whatsoever, so long as enough electors decided to break party ranks and vote for you. Of course, the amount of blackmail and bribery material necessary to do that would be absolutely staggering.
The Atlanta Constitution reports today that new polls show Gore leading in Illinois, Maryland and New Hampshire. IIRC, the Maryland lead is now in double digits.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but I’m wondering the same as the OP. Anyone seen anything online lately? I can’t for the life of me figure out why there isn’t a site for this - I’d go everyday!
To take an old thread off-topic, can someone explain how the US territories get to vote in the presidential election? At least, that’s what I’m assuming from the info about the “need to win.” The number usually given is 270 votes in the Electoral College, so that means there’s 538, 539, or 540 Electors.
House of Representatives has 435 reps from the states, and there’s 100 senators, which adds up to 535. 50% + 1 of that is 268.
The House also has 5 non-voting members from Peurto Rico, American Samoa, D.C., Guam and the Virgin Islands, so I assume that’s why the College has 540 votes. (About the US Congress)
But, Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution (as amended by the 12th Amendment) says that the President is elected by electors chosen from the states. So where is the constitutional authority for the territories to participate?
(If I’m missing something obvious here, please be gentle.)
You forgot about D.C.
535 + 3 = 538
538 / 2 = 269
269 + 1 = 270
Connor’s right; by Amendment (don’t remember which one, but it was ratified between 1960 and 1964) the District of Columbia has 3 votes in the Electoral College. No other territory/colony/non-state has such rights.
[Homer voice]
Woo hoo!
[/Homer voice]
Campaigns & Elections handicaps every congressional race, every contested Senate race, every gubernatorial race and gives odds on who’ll win the electoral vote.
I don’t know how often this site is updated. Yesterday, for example, polls were released showing Gore taking the lead in Colorado, but Bush is still listed as 4-3 favorite.
Another interesting site is Iowa Electronic Markets. This is a cash-only futures market run by the Iowa biz school. You can make your plays on congressional control or presidential victory. In this market, Bush is plummetting, Hillary is rising, and Dems are expected to win House, Gops to win Senate.
The amendment was ratified in 1961. The District of Columbia has had 3 electoral votes since the 1964 election. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, etc., have no say at all in Presidential elections, but at least some of them do vote in presidential primaries and send voting delegates to the parties’ nominating conventions.
Well, in the Sept 9th Mercury news, they had a big article on the electoral count. Most of the independent pundits agree, that once you count the Staes which are very likely one way or the other, the “commited” count is Bush 178, Gore 177, ie a dead heat. The following states are undecieded, and have enuf votes to swing the election. Fla, Ill, Kent, Mich, Missouri, NJ. Ohio, & Penn.
My guess is Florida, 25: Bush
Illinois,22: Gore
Kentucky, 8: ?
Michigan,18: Gore
NJ, 15: Gore
Ill, 22: Gore
Ohio, 21: Bush
Missouri, 11: ?
Bush 46, Gore 77. The other, smaller uncommited states will split nearly 50-50, with a slight edge to Bush. I’m guessing Gore by under 10 EC votes. And, with only a plurality of the Pop vote. It’s gonna be close.
Should the vote go to the Senate, it is my understanding they can choose to elect anyone they wish. They do not have to stay with the major, or even declared, candidates. By anyone, of course I mean anyone who meets the constitutional provisions of age, birth, etc.
Does anyone remember this actually happening? If I remember HS government correctly, the Founding Fathers actually anticipated that the President would usually be selected by the Senate. The assumed that so many citizens would want to be involved in the process, that it would be impossible for a candidate to win the 50%+1 votes needed to win. The did not envision the modern two-party system that evolved fairly early on.
thanks very much for clarifying that for me.
It’s not the senate, but the House of Representatives. The procedure is outlined in Amendment XII. Each state delegation gets one vote. They can chose only amongst the three highest finishers in the electoral college vote. The election of 1824 was decided in favor of John Q. Adams under these provisions.
Before Amendment XII was ratified, the procedure followed was that outlined in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. The House determined the election of 1800 under those provisions.
The Senate does choose the Vice President however. In that case, each Senator votes individually.
The only time the House had to decide the election under the terms of the 12th Amendment was in 1824 and John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson and (forget his first name) Crawford. Speaker of the House Henry Clay, who had finished fourth, threw his support to Adams and some states that had voted for Jackson in the popular vote, saw their representatives cast votes for Adams instead.
This, along with Clay’s subsequent accession to the post of Secretary of State, made for an unpleasant four years for JQ Adams as president.
Since, by law, electoral votes aren’t officially counted until January 6, it would be the new Congress that would decide the issue.
Also, if you are the person entrusted with delivering the official electoral votes from your state capital to Washington, DC and you run off with them, you can be fined $1,000.
You can also go to your state’s secretary of state’s office and demand to see the copy of the votes that each state keeps. I think it helps to doublecheck that the right person was elected.
Since we’re (sort of) on the subject, can anyone tell me if a president has lost the popular vote (meaning a different candidate got more votes than he did, not the same as having a minority of the popular vote, as mentioned several pages above) but won the electoral vote?
Eh, this is a bit misleading. As there were more than 2 candidates running (as there are in most modern elections), Clinton’s percentage of the total votes cast was not a majority (50%+1), but it was a plurality of all the votes cast (more than any other candidate). By no reasonable definition did he receive a minority of the votes cast.
Just as an update, the post-DNC numbers have closed to something you might call real danged close.
It looks like Gore has managed to swing most of New England and the Mid-Atlantic, while Bush is looking strong in the South and Non-California West. The Great Lakes region, so critically important, looks to be more of a tossup than it was. I predict we will be graced with a photograph of one or more of the candidates wearing one of those Green Bay Cheese-Head hats within two weeks.
BTW, I recommend caution when looking at that electoral map. Statistical error being what it is, I think things are a lot closer than it looks. This is going to be a close one.
Three presidents had fewer popular votes than another candidate, but still won in the electoral vote.
1824 - Adams had fewer popular (and electoral) votes than Andrew Jackson, but won the election in the House. This was the first year that popular votes were counted and some states still didn’t use popular votes to name their electors (and South Carolina wouldn’t for quite a while)
1876 - Hayes had fewer votes than Tilden, but there was so much ballot mischief going on in this election that nobody can tell for certain who really won.
1888 - Harrison beat Cleveland. This was fairly clearcut. A tariff issue split the country and Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, carried the South by wide margins, but didn’t elsewhere. By this time, Southern Democrats had succeeded in disenfranchising most African-American voters, so it was easy for a Democrat to win by large margins.