3 Responses to “McCain Takes Lead In Electoral Votes”

1. CHRIS DICKSON Aug 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am

   I’m sorry, but aren’t looking at Poll Numbers a bit above Barack’s pay grade? I know, let’s ask his grandmother what she thinks….

2. susan Aug 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

   The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

   The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

   Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

   Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

   The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

   See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

3. Charles Signorile Aug 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am

   I am familiar with your orginization and I believe your logic is flawed to say the least. Your concern seems to be that in the current system with the electoral college in place, many States are being ignored by Presidential candidates. If we were to have a popular vote system in place that problem would only be magnified, as you would see candidates spending the bulk of their money in California, New York, and Texas, while completely ignoring States like Deleware, Rhode Island and Maryland.

   I have written about it here:

   The idea behind abolishing the electoral college is due largely to the 2000 election, with many feeling Bush actually lost the election, and without an electoral college, a recount in Florida would not have been needed. If however the election were to be decided on a popular vote basis, not only would a recount in Florida have been necessary, it is very likely a recount in every state would have been necessary as well. The amount of votes separating Gore from Bush amounted to one half of one percent of the votes, clearly Bush would have requested a recount nationwide if it were not for the electoral college.

   In that same election Gore carried only 676 counties, while Bush carried 2,436 counties. Geographically speaking, Bush had won in a landslide, however because large parts of our population are concentrated in certain States, Gore managed to win the popular vote. This begs the question, if the President were to be decided by popular vote alone, would voters in rural areas be completely ignored by the candidates?

   National Popular Vote Inc. is leading the charge in this debate, their purpose is “to study, analyze and educate the public regarding a proposal to provide for the nationwide popular election of the President.” This group actually advocates bypassing a Constitutional amendment to alter our electoral process, and are asking the States to do it on their own. Their proposal calls on states to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest vote count nationally. If enough states do that, the candidate with the most votes nationally would be guaranteed to win the election.

   Ironically the idea behind this “movement” is that certain States are ignored in Presidential elections. The outcome of this movement however will guarantee those States are ignored in the future! What Presidential candidate will feel it necessary to campaign in New Jersey when they know they will get New Jersey’s electoral votes by winning more populous States such as New York, California and Texas?

Leave a Reply