Who's really ahead in the polls, Bush or Kerry?

[Polerius]

@Fear Itself

I’m not saying I support the EC; all I’m saying is there is no incentive for the smaller states to ratify such an amendment, so it is not going to pass.

How many states need to ratify it? Can it pass if all the small states are against it?

California        33,871,64
Texas             20,851,82
New York          18,976,45
Florida           15,982,37
Illinois          12,419,29
Pennsylvania      12,281,05
Ohio              11,353,14
Michigan          9,938,444
New Jersey        8,414,350
Georgia           8,186,453
North Carolina    8,049,313
Virginia          7,078,515
Massachusetts     6,349,097
Indiana           6,080,485
Washington        5,894,121
Tennessee         5,689,283
Missouri          5,595,211
Wisconsin         5,363,675
Maryland          5,296,486
Arizona           5,130,632
Minnesota         4,919,479
Louisiana         4,468,976
Alabama           4,447,100
Colorado          4,301,261
Kentucky          4,041,769
South Carolina    4,012,012
Oklahoma          3,450,654
Oregon            3,421,399
Connecticut       3,405,565
Iowa              2,926,324
Mississippi       2,844,658
Kansas            2,688,418
Arkansas          2,673,400
Utah              2,233,169
Nevada            1,998,257
New Mexico        1,819,046
West Virginia     1,808,344
Nebraska          1,711,263
Idaho             1,293,953
Maine             1,274,923
New Hampshire     1,235,786
Hawaii            1,211,537
Rhode Island      1,048,319
Montana           902,195
Delaware          783,600
South Dakota      754,844
North Dakota      642,200
Alaska            626,932
Vermont           608,827
District of Columb572,059
Wyoming           493,782

If 2/3 of the states are needed to ratify the amendment, the above population data shows that we can ignore what the following states think about the issue (assuming the other states are for the amendment): Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming

[BobLibDem]

@Polerius

If 2/3 of the states are needed to ratify the amendment, the above population data shows that we can ignore what the following states think about the issue (assuming the other states are for the amendment): Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming

I think the difficulty would not only be with those states less populous than Utah. There are some major states that relish the fact that campaigns are tailored to their needs and their issues. Among them: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. This translates into policy: the only reason that the economic quarantine of Cuba continues is that the president that stops it will forfeit Florida’s electoral votes. Anything that you propose that will change the balance of power must be agreed to by those willing to give up that power. Don’t hold your breath.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Polerius

If 2/3 of the states are needed to ratify the amendment, the above population data shows that we can ignore what the following states think about the issue (assuming the other states are for the amendment): Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming

Well, I could be wrong, but I’m under the impression that:
-Utah
-Montana
-Nebraska
-Idaho
-Hawaii
-Rhode Island
-Delaware
-South Dakota
-North Dakota
-Alaska
-Wyoming

don’t see any presidential campaigning right now: their electoral votes are already locked up, so there’s no reason for candidates to go there. If they voted to abolish the electoral college, suddenly the candidates would have a reason to go there. Why would these states vote against such an amendment?

Daniel

[Fear_Itself]

@Polerius

How many states need to ratify it?

Article 5 of Constitution states that it shall require 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. That means it would require only 13 states to block ratification.

[Polerius]

@BobLibDem

I think the difficulty would not only be with those states less populous than Utah. There are some major states that relish the fact that campaigns are tailored to their needs and their issues. Among them: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

Yes, but maybe we can “swap” Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania with three of the smaller states that are non-swing states and thus might not be against abolishing the EC.

[Fear_Itself]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

don’t see any presidential campaigning right now: their electoral votes are already locked up, so there’s no reason for candidates to go there.

However, you do see a lot of campaigning in New Hampshire, with only 4 votes, and Iowa with only 7. Un a popular vote system, those states would see little or no campaigning at all. Candidates could concentrate all their resources on the largest states and win without the support of any of the smaller states.

If they voted to abolish the electoral college, suddenly the candidates would have a reason to go there. Why would these states vote against such an amendment?

Sigh. Because smaller states have more power now, and do not wish to give it up. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Acsenray]

@Fear Itself

However, you do see a lot of campaigning in New Hampshire, with only 4 votes, and Iowa with only 7. Un a popular vote system, those states would see little or no campaigning at all. Candidates could concentrate all their resources on the largest states and win without the support of any of the smaller states. Sigh. Because smaller states have more power now, and do not wish to give it up. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sigh. These are two different arguments and the one about “campaigning in small states” is nonsensical. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Polerius]

@Fear Itself

Because smaller states have more power now, and do not wish to give it up.

How does a small state that is overwhelmingly Republican or overwhelmingly Democrat have power under the current system?

It can be safely ignored during the presidential campaigns and also with regards to policymaking.

So, where is the power you speak of?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fear Itself

Sigh. Because smaller states have more power now, and do not wish to give it up. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In what sense does Wyoming have more power now, in an election in which neither candidate is paying any attention whatsoever to Wyoming? In what sense does Utah have more power in this election than Florida?

Daniel

[Fear_Itself]

@acsenray

Sigh. These are two different arguments and the one about “campaigning in small states” is nonsensical.

Youy are going to have to elaborate on why you feel this way, because it is not self-evident. Otherwise, we simply disagree.

Wherever they thought that there were people whose votes they could get, they would try to get. How they would try to get it isn’t clear: Would they travel to that locality or would they do something else? I don’t know.

Well I do. Candidates will spend their money in the the way that wil produce the most votes. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, candidates go to large states “because that’s where the votes are”. Why travel to a small town and reach a few hundred people when you can reach tens of thousands in a big city? If you think that TV will replace local campaigning, you seriously underestimate the power of flesh-pressing.

What does it matter what states a candidate visits, anyway? It means nothing in the big picture. What matters is whose votes they’re getting.

And more importantly, why address small town issues like farm subsidies and the impact of gas drilling when people in the big cities just don’t care?

[Fear_Itself]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

In what sense does Wyoming have more power now, in an election in which neither candidate is paying any attention whatsoever to Wyoming? In what sense does Utah have more power in this election than Florida?

It doesn’t. But that does not mean they never will. They could be the next New Mexico or Nevada, which are getting a lot of attention now, only because they are swing states. No EC, no swing states, nobody cares anymore. Even Wyoming knows that is true, and they will hang together with their diminuitive brethren, even if it makes little difference to them now. I know it is hard to believe, but politics will contiue after the 2004 election.

[XT]

The latest on Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 has Kerry 257 Bush 247…first time I’ve seen Kerry in the lead on this site. Florida is completely neutral now (according to the site anyway).

-XT

[jshore]

I think that both groups here are sort of talking past each other here. It is true that with the electoral college system, each individual voter in a small state has more say in the sense that the number of voters per electoral vote in, say, Wyoming is much lower than in, say, Florida. That is undoubtably true.

However, this isn’t really what the candidates focus on when they want to win the election. What they focus on is the states that are the “battleground” states…i.e., those states that are closely divided. And, all else being equal, they focus more heavily on the ones with a significant number of electoral votes like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio than they do the ones with fewer like New Mexico and New Hampshire.

So, I don’t think that number of voters per electoral vote is a really good way to determine which states candidates will focus more on. On the other hand, one could argue that the fact that states like Wyoming are over-represented in the current system means that they would prefer it to stay like it is because while it may not help their state get attention directly, one might argue that it helps make it more likely that a candidate that aligns with the views of the majority in Wyoming gets elected (since I believe there are more sparsely-populated states that are conservative than liberal and the big states tend to be more moderate to liberal, with the notable exception of Texas). It is not clear how big this effect is though…Since 1900, the only time in which the more conservative candidate has lost the popular vote nationwide but won the electoral vote was 2000 and that only occurred because of the various problems in Florida with the Palm Beach ballot and so forth.

[Acsenray]

@Fear Itself

Youy are going to have to elaborate on why you feel this way, because it is not self-evident.

Explain how “campaigning in” any state is something a state is going to care about. Yes, I agree, a state wants to have as big an impact on the outcome as possible. However, Wyoming is going to have the same impact on the election whether or not anyone campaigns in Wyoming.

Yes, under the current system, Wyoming has a disproportionately large impact on the result. Yes, that’s why Wyoming is going to oppose electoral reform.

However, the idea that “campaigning in” Wyoming has anything to do with it is what is not self evident.

Take a look at my first post in this discussion:

This is a nonsensical argument. In a straight popular vote system, every vote would could. It wouldn’t matter whether the vote was in a small state or a big state. In fact, it’s hard to say what the impact of campaigning would be, because the candidates wouldn’t be campaigning “for states” any more. They’d be campaigning for votes, period. Wherever they thought that there were people whose votes they could get, they would try to get. How they would try to get it isn’t clear: Would they travel to that locality or would they do something else? I don’t know.

What does it matter what states a candidate visits, anyway? It means nothing in the big picture. What matters is whose votes they’re getting.

Otherwise, we simply disagree.

I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with. I get the point about small states having disproportionate impact in the electoral college. Explain what this “campaigning in” stuff is all about.

Candidates will spend their money in the the way that wil produce the most votes. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, candidates go to large states “because that’s where the votes are”. Why travel to a small town and reach a few hundred people when you can reach tens of thousands in a big city?

Candidates will go wherever there is a significiant block of potential votes for them. Whether this is in a big state or a small state makes no difference.

If you think that TV will replace local campaigning, you seriously underestimate the power of flesh-pressing.

It’s already happened, mate. As it currently stands a tiny proportion of the electorate gets its flesh pressed. The swing state strategy is all about television advertisements and other mass-media activities.

And more importantly, why address small town issues like farm subsidies and the impact of gas drilling when people in the big cities just don’t care?

Oh, good grief. Those urban people and those rural people are going to vote for someone aren’t they? There is always going to be at least one candidate who’s going to try to cobble together a majority from wherever he or she can get those votes.

Also:

1. Don’t let red-and-blue maps distort reality. The electorate is divided, yes. But it is divided geographically only under our current system. In reality, people in every locality vote for both sides. Under a straight popular vote, those who are currently disenfranchised because they are in a minority will suddently actually have a voice, while those who are in the majority get to keep their voice.

2. What issues are actually bickered about in the presidential race is largely irrelevant. Take a look at Bush’s 2000 campaign and his actual presidency. No connection from one to another really.

3. The presidential campaign has little to do with issues and more to do with generalized posturing.

4. People in every locality are adequately represented in Congress. There is actually no realistic fear that “their issues won’t be addressed.” But, once again, the notion that the issues people care about are dependent on whether they live in rural or urban areas is, in my estimation, grossly exaggerated.

5. Under our current system, most voters and most localities are ignored.

[Mal_Adroit]

Survey USA poll has Kerry edging slightly in Florida today.
Me home state of PA has also moved up to 51-45 in favor of the man from Mass.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[BrainGlutton]

Update from http://www.race2004.net/, 10/24/04: 205 EVs for Bush (142 Strong, 63 Weak), 175 for Kerry (156 Strong, 19 Weak), 158 Undecided.

If the election were held today we project:

Kerry wins the presidency with 300 electoral votes. Bush places second with 238 electoral votes.

Kerry wins the popular vote with 55,521,459 votes (49.75%). Bush places second with 54,109,231 votes (48.48%).

If Colorado ballot initiative #36 passes, 4 electoral votes switch from Bush to Kerry. The new total is 304 for Kerry, 234 for Bush.

Current polling suggests the amendment is likely to fail.

In addition, poll data suggests that the loser in Maine (currently Bush) may be able to pick off one electoral vote.

Meanwhile, http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has the tally at 253 EVs for Bush, 254 for Kerry, with only two states – Florida (27 EVs) and Hawaii (4) – “Exactly Tied.”

[XT]

It will probably shift back and forth daily until the election from here on out. Its anyone’s race at this point…flip a coin and drink heavily next tuesday is my advice. Least thats what I’m going to do. I already voted (New Mexico has early voting) so I’m free to take tuesday off and just get completely wasted.

-XT

[Mullinator]

@BrainGlutton

Meanwhile, http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has the tally at 253 EVs for Bush, 254 for Kerry, with only two states – Florida (27 EVs) and Hawaii (4) – “Exactly Tied.”

Hawaii? Whu? Did some random guy do the polling of his family or did Hawaii swing from solidly Kerry to a tie from the middle of nowhere.

[Tigers2B1]

They must have just changed the map to reflected the lastest poolling numbers. Presently it’s -

**285 EV for Bush

247 EV for Kerry**

[Patty_O_Furniture]

I have no idea what to believe any more. People who know about these things say when the polling data are so unreliable, we need to look at the data trends. The trend for the Big Three shows Kerry taking all three.