Win Valuable Prizes!
Well, not as such...
Personally, I think it will be 274 to Obama, 264 to McCain. But have a play around yourself, as news from polls comes in.
Start with any state less than 55/45 either way in the 2004 vote as "undecided", then start adding new reports as coloured by your own fears and prejudices.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Ah, good old U.S. presidential election system. Have fun if the vote is 269-269.
Let's say that happens, and one elector decides to take his chance, "Y'know, mah grandpappy would make a better president than these 2 fools, so let me go ahead and write him in for President." Now, the actual electoral vote is 269 Obama, 268 McCain, 1 that elector's old grandpappy.
Now, no candidate has a majority of the electoral vote, which is 270 votes or more out of 538, so now the election must go to the House of Representatives where each state will have 1 vote and they must pick from the top three vote-getters: Obama, McCain, and that elector's old grandpappy. (For a candidate to win, he must have a number of state representations representing a majority of the number of states in the Union, which is currently 26 states, voting for him and a quorum will constitute representatives from 2/3 of the states being president. The representatives will vote separately, but when the vote is counted they will be grouped into states, wherein the candidate receiving the most votes from that state representation gets that state's vote, but if there is a tie for 1st or no candidate from that state shows that state will be counted as not voting.)
Now, there'll be a lotta wheelin' and dealin' in the House of Representatives, because the state representations are each wanting to get promises from the candidates, but there's still deadlock. They start to look at that elector's old grandpappy, who received 0 popular votes, save that one elector's write-in which was thrown out, because the elector's old grandpappy was not registered as a write-in candidate. Well, they come to agreement and vote in that elector's old grandpappy as President of the United States with 27 states votin' for 'im, thinking they can control him, but as that elector would say, "Mah grandpappy'll show 'em!"
Well, the only catch is that elector's sorta get told what to vote in most states, and such an option isn't available int he rest, where its split according to the popular vote by precinct.
So it would be more like 3 or 4 votes off for that to happen :d
And hiya sumptos.
Hello, Dyss.
All states but two and the District of Columbia each choose the entire slate of electors pledged to the popular vote winner, while Nebraska and Maine give a slate of two electors pledged to the State's popular vote winner while giving an elector pledged to the popular vote winner of each of the State's Congressional Districts.
There are legal issues with how electors vote, but under the Constitution they are considered independent agents who may vote freely. 2 states will make an elector who casts a vote against their pledge invalid and automatically replace that elector with another, while 24 states will punish electors after the fact, but that elector's vote will probably legally stand. In the rest of the states, there is no such punishment. History records such faithless electors in the 2004 election (when a Minnesota elector cast their presidential vote for a _vice presidential_ candidate), the 2000 election (when a DC elector abstained in protest of DC's lack of representation in Congress), the 1988 election, when an elector wrote in Bentsen instead of whoever the Democratic candidate was then), and going back.
It's an interesting setup.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai7lJPMTZz27Tk4dSaK_jZfsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20081031231435AAucgN4
Yahoo! Answers fetcherer.
Anomymous -
One strategy in dealing with contradictory viewpoints is to seek out further information, retaining an open mind. It's likely that neither side has a direct line to "the truth", but sometimes one side really is 100% right, the other 100% wrong. This is the exception rather than the rule though. Usually you have to synthesise some form of compromise. Sometimes you really do have to keep two different and contradictory models in your head, realising that they're both more true than the other in different circumstances, with neither being the "whole truth". You have to see what works. And be prepared to change your mind as new information becomes available.
Another strategy is to close your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you" to shut out disturbing information which is obviously true, can't be argued with, but which you don't want to believe.
For an example of this, see how Free Republic went downhill, or the famous case of the Cardinal who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because he was afraid of what he might see, and be unable to deny.
Your map is all wet. The average of the polls puts Obama ahead by 8% a land slide and there are a few states your map has wrong.
Anonymous...having done polls myself, I don't put too much faith in them. It's too easy to bias the questions, even if you're not trying to. And if you have a vested interest in one side winning...
The polls that count are the ones people vote in on Nov 4.
(For what it's worth, I voted against both major candidates).
"It's too easy to bias the questions, even if you're not trying to." that is why I stated the average of the polls and not one poll which range from 6 to 12 % in favor of Obama. In any case I will accept any bet that says he will lose. They have already paid bets in England.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html
Obama 338
McCain 200
Zoë your map has Alaska as undecided. It will surely go Palin/McCain :P I also think New Hampshire (my state) will go blue by a small margin.
Post a Comment