The exceptionally close race between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney has once again raised the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the White House by falling short in electoral votes.
In most recent scenarios, Romney is projected as the victim in this odd quirk of the US voting system. Polls show him winning more overall individual votes, yet Obama retaining a narrow lead in enough states to accumulate more than the required 270 electoral votes needed to be reelected president. The candidate who wins the most individual votes in a state, even if by just a single vote, almost always gets all its electoral votes.
Comments
Actually, it's just the OPPOSITE -- it is ØBAMA who could get more popular votes but lose the election. Here's how: *** Consider these three states -- and throw in MA in the mixture if you like. 1) California, 53 congressional districts, 55 Electoral Votes; 2) NYS, 27 CD's, 29 EV's; 3) Illinois, 18 CD's, 20 EV's. *** I believe this year, about 140 million votes will be cast. With 53 + 27 + 18 -- and throw in MA's 8 congressional CD's -- and you have 106 congressional districts, which is about 25% of the total 435 CD's. *** In ALL of these states, Øbama has had leads in the polls of 20% - 28%. Both NY and MA give / gave Øbama around 28 points; CA 24, and IL 20. Altogether, let's say 25 points combined. *** Now, if there are 140 million voters, 25% of them is 35 million, and if Øbama is going to get 5/8 of them, that means, out of these 4 states, Øbama is going to harvest around 21.9 million votes, and Romney about 13.1 million. That is a difference of 8.8 million votes. *** If America's election were a national plebescite, this would be a daunting, almost impossible burden for Romney to overcome. But as it is, with the Electoral College system, all it means is that Øbama came out of those 4 states with 114 Electoral Votes. *** Consider California alone. It will have around 17 million voters, and if Øbama gets 5/8 of them, he got 10.7 million and Romney 6.3 million. Øbama carries CA by 4.4 million votes. *** But it might as well be 4 THOUSAND votes for all the difference it makes. The excess votes MEAN NOTHING. Øbama might as well take those extra 4,396,000 votes AND THROW THEM INTO THE GARBAGE. They are WASTED. *** Consider now NY and Texas. NY has 27 congressional districts, and TX has 36, so NY is 3/4 as populous as TX. Let's say there are 9 million voters in NY and 12 million in TX. *** The latest poll I saw shows Øbama up by 28 points in NY. That means, he stands to carry NY by 64 - 36. If there are 9 million voters there, that means, Øbama gets 5.8 million, Romney 3.2 million, and Øbama carries NY by 2.6 million votes. *** Now consider Texas. The latest poll I saw had Romney in front by 6 points, which means, a 53 - 47 spread. That means, Romney gets around 6.4 million votes out of Texas, and Øbama 5.6 million, and Romney carries TX by 800,000 votes. *** In these two states combined, Øbama gets 11.4 million votes, and Romney 9.6 million. *** Øbama gets 1.8 million more votes than Romney -- BUT ROMNEY GETS MORE ELECTORAL VOTES. Romney gets 38 from Texas; Øbama gets 29 from NY. *** My conclusion: Øbama enjoys great popularity in a few very large states. But if Øbama is running even in the polls nationwide with Romney, that means Romney is leading, but with smaller margins, in MOST of the rest of the country. *** My conclusion: Øbama's support is way to concentrated in a few large states for his own good, and it will mean ROMNEY DEFEATS ØBAMA in two weeks.
This statement is an example of the tone which has got to change if democracy is really going to work. The slash through the O in Obama is a clear expression of hostility and disrespect. The man, and the position, deserves the respect due for taking on the impossible job of the presidency. Simply living with the insanity of millions of anonymous posters should be enough to make the man a national hero.
aweful lot of words from someone who knows absolutely nothing about the electoral college or the process in general. I hope you didn't spend a lot of time on that.
It is time to reform our 18th century electoral system so that everyone's vote counts, not just those who live in "swing states". It would also prevent groups in swing states from controlling US policy as the Cuban exile community in FL has done.
Agree this is nonsense. Ohio is the only state whose votes count more than any other state. NUTS!
Let's hope for all our sakes that we don't havean election decided in the House. The country is divided as is. I don't hink we could make it through knowing that a polarized Congress made the decision. When the Court stepped in in 2008, it left a bad tast in the mouths of a lot of people. It doesn't even matter which side you are on, we need a clear victory in order for people to have faith in democracy. There is enough on the internet about Tag Romney's owning voting machines to make people wonder whether the whole thing is rigged. And think about the reaction of the world if another Amercian President assumes power because a branch of government stepped in. Please don't give us more scenarios in which the Democratic Republic is undermined....even if it is constitutional.
No matter who wins, this country will continue to become more and more divided. Social media and Cable TV talking heads on both sides aren't helping matters.
I've seen family members, friends and co-workers wind up in angry bitter disputes over politics! It has become insane. We better wake up America!
Myth Romney may win it and lose it! How nice.
I do not care HOW the president wins just that he WINS. Naturally it is better for the country if the election is a decided outcome but what will be will be. Here is a wonderful article striking at the heart of the choice in this election. It really does boil down to this. What is the definition of the kind of culture in which you want to live? Is this the brave new world you want to pass on to generations that come after us. It is an article everyone who is or soon will be registered to vote should read. So I hope you pass it on. Taken from Huffington Post and written by Alberto Torres UCLA professor of education, author, and co-founder of the Paulo Freire Institute The Republican Party's Perfect Storm: The Hegemony of Male-centric, Class-centric and Ethnocentric Policies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlos-alberto-torres/republican-partys-perfect-storm_b_2007528.html?utm_hp_ref=politics#comments
Historical examples where the president won the Electoral College despite the second-place finisher winning the popular vote have favored the Republicans in three elections. The records of the popular vote in the 1824 election are incomplete, and the GOP had not been established. As it is, the GOP has no incentive to change the status quo, and it is conceivable that we could have Romney winning the Electoral vote but losing the popular vote, just as a tie is conceivable this year, as is also an Electoral victory by Obama with Romney winning the popular vote. The last scenario, however, is the only one that would motivate the GOP to support amending the Constitution to retire the Electoral College. Personally I don't see the NPV tweak, with a State's Electoral votes going to the winner of the national popular vote even if another candidate wins the popular vote in that State, as an acceptable way to do things, since it disenfranchises voters in that State. If one wants to modify the Electoral College to better reflect the popular vote allotment of Electoral Votes by district, as is done in Maine and Nebraska, is a much fairer process.
If the Boston Globe is writing this article then it thinks that Obama will get more popular votes, thanks to extra votes in MA, but lose on electoral votes.
Funny, if you read the article it says the opposite. Romney right now in the polls carries more popular votes but likely fewer electoral college votes. You're thinking of 2000 when Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote (some might say not-so-rightfully).
This is just a reminder of how important it is for everyone to get out and vote. Even in states like Massachusetts where the election seems a foregone conclusion. I do not want a President Romney, but I also don't want a President Obama who hasn't won the majority of votes. It's important to get out and support your candidate by increasing his popular vote total even if your vote won't contribute to the actual winning of the race.
The founding fathers didn't trust the little people to vote. Our access to government was intended to be through the House of Representatives only! The people's house. The people were to vote for reps. The reps were to vote for senators. Senators with the electors and electoral college were supposed to elect the President. The problem is the herd effect. You are supposed to be electing leaders who can make the unpopular decisions that are in society's best interest. Too often society will act as a herd AGAINST its best interests (like, let's raid the treasury to buy health insurance... only to find you have no economy and no jobs in the end...). The Founding Fathers, having seen human history, knew that the people would eventually vote to feel good in the short term at their long-term demise!!! THAT is why we were never intended to vote for senators and presidents. Given the last four years, it is obvious they were on to something with that warning from 200 years ago... We are a Federal Republic. Not a Democracy. Federal Repubic refers to 'rule of law' such as the constitution that protects the minority from the majority. Democracy on the other hand refers to 'mob rule'. In pure Democracy, you can outlaw blondes. 'Hey we voted, you blondes are out of here. Oh, and we're taking your stuff on your way out. Hey, we voted.' It is the rule of law in a federal republic, backed by the constitution, that protects blondes and their stuff from mob-rule Democracy!! It is the FEDERAL REPUBLIC that protects you and makes America 'America', NOT democracy! You can see the difference in federal republic from democracy in Egypt alone!!! Every single one of you should be cheering on the fact that we live in a federal republic backed by a constitution, and not in a 'democracy'. Having said that, you should then understand how stupid it is to back away from the electoral college. Only a fool or a Democrat would even THINK of going there...
Well, user, the analogous situation to your reference to outlawing blondes is the voter referendum, not the election of officials by popular vote. The Founding Fathers were not unanimous in their decision to have state legislatures elect senators, and the call for direct popular votes goes all the way back to the early 1800's, when many Founding Fathers were still alive. Your argument is specious.
I much prefer winner-take-all in every State ... and the Electoral College.
I think what's lost in this discussion of the popular vote is how these campaigns strategize. This race isn't stroke play, it's match play, i.e., the idea is to win states, not everyone's vote. It doesn't matter if Obama loses Texas by 100 votes or 1,000,000 votes, he still only loses Texas' 29 electoral votes. Since the polling from day one showed the Obama campaign that Texas was going for Romney they spent no resources there. Extrapolate this strategy nation-wide and you get many, many thousands of votes Obama might have picked up being left on the table. The same, of course, goes for the Romney camp.
This is why I don't pay much attention to the national polls. They're scoring a different game.
Now the e-mails have come out. The White House Situation Room KNEW within 2 hours that there was an al Qaeda attack on the Benghazi consolate in Libya. Barack Obama KNEW! He LIED about the Video. Hillary clinton lied. Is the Boston Globe going to COVER UP this news?
Off topic much?
Since this kind of news will affect both the electoral college numbers and the popular vote, it is quite on topic. If the Globe reported this news, this blog would not be necessary. The Globe will report this news only after every other news source puts it out. It's already on Fox, CBS, and Reuters.
Aren't we getting just a little bit ahead of ourselves here? The media is attempting to declare everything prior to the vote. Theres even a backlash against the undecided or uncommitted voter - anger because the media may not get the info to declare the winner prior to the vote itself.
One option to consider.....Winner of the state gets 50% of the electoral votes (+ 1/2 if necessary). The remaning votes are divided proportionally. There will be a difference of winning 51% and winning 59 or 60% of the votes. ALL votes will count...we will all be "swing voters". And, hopefully, no one will be taken for granted.
As you know, a state's electoral votes equal that state's number of senators and representatives. Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by district (indicated by number of representatives), and the overall winner of the popular vote in those states gets two electoral votes (senators). No one can throw up straw arguments about 'what does 60% of a voter look like?' that is often used. Although the voters within a district that vote for a losing candidate effectively do not see their votes counted, that system does not disenfranchise as many as is the case where the winner gets the entire state.
Only in AMERICA - the country that is warring all over the world in the name of,"democracy."