A closer look at several battleround states can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index_SWINGSTATESOR.html

Trend:
Big Cities + Big colleges = Big Kerry.

The question is "Do College Kids Vote"?

One thing that I see most every pundit claim is that New Hampshire is going to go to Kerry because it's a neighboring state.

Poll after poll has shown New Hampshire to vacillate between the two candidates for months. NH, a traditionally Republican state is filled with very politically savvy voters (we in NH like to claim that politics is the official sport of the state).

My best estimate (judging by what I read in the local papers) is that if the next two jobs reports go Bush's way, then New Hampshire will too.

Had Gore won NH, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Back in 2000, I was wondering "Why can't we just get rid of the Electoral College already?" and I am beginning to ask that same question again! Hasn't it outlived its' usefulness?

"Back in 2000, I was wondering 'Why can't we just get rid of the Electoral College already?'"

Because you can't "get rid" of the EC, you have to substitute something for it. Three proposals on what to substitute for it will generate four opinions; no alternative to it has the support to actually be adopted.

Actually, until the 2000 election I never understood the purpose of the Electoral College. The EC exists because without it, what ever party controlled the 10 biggest cities in the United States would in control the federal power of all 50 states.

Essentially, the federal election is 50 state elections held at the same time for the same candidates. Without the EC, small states would not matter and would be essentially powerless against larger states. The EC serves as one more method to balance power.

We are not the Peoples Republic of America, but the United States of America. The EC is how the states put in their vote for president.

Note to those of you in states trying to remove the "winner take all " provsion for electoral votes( ahem - Colorado!), if you really want to become irrelevent to the federal election, I cant think of a better way to do it.

The Electoral College does create an interesting spread and the idea that it MAY help to diminish regional domination makes some logical sense. Still, the real point has to be that in this day and age, presidents shouldn't be winning with minority votes. We know that the Electoral College CAN exasperate this issue by depressing voter turnout as well, limiting the results to to the votes of a highly polarized but motivated few.

I do see your point though JOHN ~ what else is there?

While I did quote a poll on Fox and Friends the other day putting Bush ahead in Florida, the Beltway Boys on their maps have it going Kerry, every poll has Florida in a dead heat so it could go either way. With so many counties going to electronic voting machines that are easier to hack and don't provide a paper trail for recounting, and the large number of counties run by Democratic hacks willing to chuck the rules in '00 to help Gore win it's possible they might succeed this year where they failed last.

More for the "if you thought Florida '00 was bad.." file.

Sleep tight everyone.

If that's how it looks before the RNC and the big-gun advertising comes out, Kerry is toast.

I'd be surprised if PA doesn't go to Bush in the end, as well.

Coming from one of the smaller states (Delaware) I know that I'd rather not have NY and CA be the only states/regions electing the president.

I think the strongest argument for the EC is that it does in fact "maintain a federal system of government and representation." For more on both sides of the argument visit the Federal Election Commision's website, specifically their PDF file on the history of the EC (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf)

This has worked well for over 200 years and finally others are catching on - look at the EU.

Lastly, he is being elected as "the President of the UNITED STATES." There is a reason we are states and not one big undivided (in that sense) country.

I think Bush is going to pick up at least one of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and he's got a decent shot at winning both of them. Either would be the difference, IMO.

I agree with the WV outcome, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be shocked, despite the current polls, if PA slipped into the Bush camp by November.

BTW, New Hampshire splits its electoral votes. Two votes for winning the state, one vote for each Congressional District. (A simple solution, since electoral votes are obtained by # of Senators + # of Representatives.)

So it's slightly harder to just put it in one column or the other.

Frank said: "...We are not the Peoples Republic of America, but the United States of America. The EC is how the states put in their vote for president....."

Thank you Frank for a good explanation of the reasoning behind the Electoral College. States elect Presidents, not people. This keeps CA, NY, etc from electing our Presidents through a majority(populace) vote.

Smart fellows still, those forefathers.

"BTW, New Hampshire splits its electoral votes. Two votes for winning the state, one vote for each Congressional District."

I don't believe that this is the case. Maine and Nebraska do it, and Colorado is considering it, but New Hampshire is solidly in the "statewide winner takes all" category.

I'd generally agree with that map. It's a fairly "safe" guess at this point, but still requires Kerry to shore up support in some key states like Minnesota and Wisconsin.

In it's usual predictably bad timing, the NY Times came out with an editorial calling for the abolition of the electoral college. I disagree entirely.

What the electoral college does is a self-fix in the case of a statistical tie among the popular vote, and makes voter fraud an exercise in diminishing returns. Look at 2000. Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes, but that was only 0.4% of the total. Considering ballot spoilage rates are above 1%, the election was a statistical tie. The electoral college then guarantees that the candidate with more support over the entire country will win.

I think 2000 was a great argument to *keep* the electoral college, not do away with it.

Dear Ren,

Are you aware that Mr. Clinton never won a majority of the vote?

Gee, I have my own map on WSJ! I even included CA, NJ, Maine, PA, OH, and MN! I am not wishful thinking. I live in CA! Just watch. It is going to be a blow out! You just make sure that no matter what the tv says, you get those people to the polls! I don't want another FL effect, do you hear me?! Now MARCH!

Don't worry about a 269-269 tie. If that happens, it will go to the House, but the (newly elected) House will vote by state delegations, and whoever gets a simple majority of the states wins. I did the math on this and 32 states would go Republican, 16 would go Democrat, and 2 would be tied (delegations split equally b/w D's & R's).

Also, watch Minnesota and Wisconsin. I'd say both are tossups, with Bush trending up.

Although I am now in CT, I was born and raised in New Mexico and still follow God's favorite state. I am predicting that unless something really big happens in Kerry's favor he has got a HUGE turnout problem. Light voting in NM and George wins the state.

If Bush wins while carrying Minnesota, look for Governor Tim Pawlenty to be a national candidate with real possibilities in '08. He is 43 years old (wouldn't be great to have a candidate who was only 14 when Saigon fell? No more Vietnam-era baby boomers informing the world about how important their experiences were!), and very savvy, with a knack for appealing to the Christian right and the suburban moderate simulteaneously. An appealing midwestern governor who can excite the Southern base would put the Democrats in a very, very, foul mood.

Convention hasn't started yet and I bet Bush has had a bigger bounce than Kerry.

I prefer the state-by-state odds at TradeSports.com (bettors integrate polling data and other information not reflected in polls). As of early this morning, those odds indicate Bush would get 279 to 284 electoral votes. As an alternative I look at the "poll of polls" for a 3-way race at RealPolitics.com and translate the leader's fraction of the 2-party vote into expected electoral votes, using an algorithm based on the 1956-2000 elections. That method yields 295 to 359 EVs for Bush. For details, go here:
http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2004/08/election-projections-bushs-lead-grows.html
and here:
http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2004/08/election-projections-explained.html

Ah, you're right. I was getting New Hampshire's situation confused with Maine.

Purely anecdotal, but at the MN state fair (a big deal here) I saw many Bush/Cheney buttons and almost no Kerry buttons. This despite the fact that the Kerry booth was at the main entrance and the Bush booth off to the side and back.

The other thing is - I had about a half dozen people come up to me and ask me where to get the Bush buttons...

I have been predicting for a year that unless the vote buying and fraud are more extreme than last time, Wisconsin is going for Bush.

DISENFRANCHISED is my new favorite word of the week. It happens EVERY election ~ so why complain now? Because it DOES matter, that's why. Nobody should feel "disenfranchised" especially with the stakes this high. It's no wonder why there are so many protestors in NY right now.

BTW, i didn't like the NYTIMES Op-Ed piece. I get the feeling that it wouldn't have even been written if GORE had won 2000 by the same margins as BUSH.

ROSEMARY ~ yes, I already knew that Clinton had won with less than 50% of the overall vote, both times. If we had 3 or more major players, you'd probably see a less than 50% win in every election. That's a different matter all together unless you see the EC as being the main reason why we're caught in this present bipartisanship (which might actually be a good argument).

""

Nu? How are you going to prevent people from feeling disenfranchised?

Pick any candidate you like in this election -- Bush, Kerry, Nader, Bednarik, Mouse. What will you say to the people who "feel disenfranchised" because their selected candidate didn't win?

"There can be only one" applies to elections as well as to sword-wielding quasi-immortals.

Will Allen:

On Tim Pawlenty, NO!

PLEASE give Me another decade or so before I am as old as the President of the United States!

Aaron:

So, you're hoping that Bush falls further in the polls than Kerry after his convention? [wag]

REM:

If you want a bunch of arguments FOR the EC (none against; this is not a "both sides" book), you could try: "Securing Democracy" ISBN 1-882926-65-X. It is a collection of essays.

Disenfranchisement isn't just about losing and having a poor attitude. It's about feeling like you're being cheated (literally or not)! Please don't dismiss this point so flipantly. People's misunderstandings on this point are critical.

Yeah, I think Sabato really is smoking something if he thinks Kerry is going to carry WV. As I understood it, it is a very military oriented state, and the Swiftvets should pretty much seal it. I think that 1971 Kerry testimony alone would be enough to do it. I read a piece by Democratic tool Will Saletan about a month ago(I think) on WV, and he pretty much couldn't find anybody willing to publicly admit they were for Kerry, and that was before the Swiftvets.

I think one issue in Nevada might be nuclear waste. That'll hurt Bush, and Kerry's been harping on it.

Generally agree with the map as the race stands now. I think NH will go for Bush as the GOP dominates the state. And polls have been moving toward Bush so some states that are close now like IA, WI, MN should drift into Bush's camp. Agree that Sabato seems to be off in his analysis but then again I never found him to be very accurate. As for Nevada I read somewhere that Kerry supported sending the nuclear waste to Yucca also so Bush should be able to neutralize this issue there.

Will: Ditto on that with Tim Pawlenty. Tim is one of the best GOP candidates that we've had for some time. From the beginning when he was in a major fight with Brian Sullivan for the nomination. He's going to go somewhere, and he's someone to watch in the future.

"Disenfranchisement isn't just about losing and having a poor attitude. It's about feeling like you're being cheated (literally or not)!"

Come, REN.

How many people will pull out the "silent majority" meme on November 4 -- the notion that, if only the "true people" had turned out, or hadn't been brainwashed/coerced/intimidated, their candidate would surely have won in a landslide?

They'll feel cheated. They'll feel disenfranchised, because they have to go four years without their man in the White House. They'll tell you that they've been disenfranchised, and for that reason: "The President-elect doesn't represent me".

Not all the supporters of the losing candidates will act that way. Some will shrug and say, "Oh, well, four more years". Some will grumble, "The people have spoken...the stupid rat bastards".

But some will scream, "People couldn't reject our candidate! The election must have been stolen by the Special Interests!"

And if their candidate only gets two votes, they will go on believing that the other hundred million voter were suffering from false consciousness, or were turned away from the polls by the NKVD, or had their ballots torn up, or something.

Being a Wisconsite... I think people underestimate how much Wisconsin is really in play. It will be tight, but it was close in 2000, and Bush has been campaigning A LOT here lately, not to mention a lot of ad coverage. His first campaign stop after the convention is in Milwaukee on Friday. That tells you how important his folks think Wisconsin is.

Re: Nevada and a tie....

Oh, no. Just oh, no. Please.

You know, I'm in my early twenties and I think this election is already raising my blood pressure to critical levels.

The reason why the Electoral Collage is a great idea is that it requires fewer recounts, and makes effective cheating harder.

If we had not had the ED in 2000, EVERY STATE would have had to do recounts like Florida was doing.

If we didn't have an EC, then vote fraud in one state could throw the whole election, far more often than otherwise. Right now, vote fraud in Chicago only affects IL's vote. Without an EC, it gets the whole nation.

As for your map, I think that there's a reasonable chance Kerry will take Nevada if the election is close, but I think MN is likely Bush, and NM as well (remember that Gore only "won" New Mexico because someone "discovered" 500 Gore votes that "hadn't been included in the total." Thus is went from Bush by 156 to Gore by 344. yeah, right).

John,

You are STILL ignoring what "disenfranchisement" LITERALLY means. It's the same reason gerrymandering gets people so worked up and mad. It's not just a VOTE that LOSES, it's a LOST VOTE!

Can't you just wrap your mind around that for 2 seconds? Your arguments are all valid but they really aren't even what I am talking about.

It's for THIS reason that the EC will come under attack again and again. Don't get me wrong, I wanted BUSH in office and will vote that way again... with an absentee ballot, nonetheless ~> now watch me cast a LOST VOTE!!!

Dear REN:
Please note "exasperate" > "exacerbate". (And, as Yogi Berra would say, "you can look it up"). And the EC isn't going away anytime soon. In a very curious optical illusion, the farther our Founding Fathers recede in the past, the brighter they appear.

Dear REN:
Please note "exasperate" > "exacerbate". (And, as Yogi Berra would say, "you can look it up"). And the EC isn't going away anytime soon. In a very curious optical illusion, the farther our Founding Fathers recede in the past, the brighter they appear.

Using Tradesports, and an unofficial Edwards website java map, the latest estimate is here: http://blog.danceslut.net/mirror/Tradesports20040817.png

I've been blogging these results occasionally; I'll be putting up a new post with this map tonight, and probably again after the Convention is all over.

Geekmedia does it better than I do: there's a map and Tradesports results at
http://geekmedia.org/tradesports/ - one can configure the bounds of "neutral", one can (at my suggestion yesterday, implemented last night) use a map distorted so that states' areas are proportional to EVs, and choose whether to use the bid, ask, average of bid/ask, or lsat trade price for one's stats.

REN,
The electoral college is not going to be changed, whether it is good or not. It is established by the twelth amendment and would require another constitutional amendment to change it. That requires approval of 3/4 of the States. Since more than half of the 38 States needed would be voting to lose power, the chance of this happening is nonexistant.

You can argue that replacing the EC would be a good thing, but you'd be wise to look for a reform that a chance of happening.