Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 28th, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
Election Referee has developed an interactive point-and-click electoral vote calculator map to let you easily explore election scenarios. You can see that many states are currently “toss-up” swing battleground states. This map calculator also shows the electoral map for the last five elections. You can easily see which states have consistently voted as Democratic blue states and which have been Republican red states.
One interesting scenario: click on 2004, click on Obama, and then click on Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. This results in a 269-269 tie between John McCain and Barack Obama. Although unlikely, this scenario would force a vote of the U.S. House of Representatives to decide the next president.
You can embed this electoral vote calculator map into your own website or blog. Simply copy the “Embed” code above and paste it into your web page or blog post code.
For more in-depth analysis tools for the 2008 presidential election, visit these excellent resources:
Also, read our article U.S. Presidential Election Rules and the Electoral Map. This includes many interesting details and some important history with good reference links.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 21st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
Reference: see Wikipedia’s article - Electoral College (United States) for more information.
The rules for the election of the President of the United States are quite simple and clear. Unlike the rules of political parties, these general election rules are laws based on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.
The Electoral College has 538 Electoral Votes:
The President is NOT elected by the popular vote, but rather by the electoral votes of the “electoral college”.
All fifty states plus Washington, D.C. have at least three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is 538. This is known as the “electoral college”. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes, which is the “magic number” of 270. (538 divided by 2 equals 269, and 269 plus 1 equals 270).
The presidential election focus between now and November 4th is on analyzing the electoral map and attaining this number.
Below is the electoral map of the 2004 Presidential Election:
(See our Free 2008 Presidential Electoral Vote Calculator Map. This includes a point-and-click interactive map that enables you to explore election scenarios. The map shows the 2008 red, blue, and toss-up states based on recent polls. You can also quickly see the electoral map results of the last five presidential elections.)
The number of electoral votes for each state is based on adding the number of U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies according to population (each state has at least one Representative, and California has the most with 53). For example, Missouri has two U.S. Senators and nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives, so Missouri has a total of 11 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. gets 3 electoral votes based on the Twenty-third Amendment adopted in 1961.
Winner-Take-All vs. Maine and Nebraska Exceptions:
Each state legislature determines the rules for how the electoral votes of the state are awarded to candidates. All the states and Washington, D.C. have a “winner-take-all” system, except for Maine and Nebraska. Under “winner-take-all”, the candidate who gets the most votes (the “popular vote”) in the state wins all of the electoral votes of the state.
Maine and Nebraska award the electoral votes based on each congressional district. Maine has four congressional districts and Nebraska has five. The candidate who wins the most votes in a congressional district gets the one electoral vote for that district. Therefore, Maine and Nebraska could split their electoral votes among the candidates, but this has never actually happened.
What if no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes?
If no candidates wins the majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on who will be the next President. This can happen and did happen in 1824.
There is an important difference between who wins the most votes and a “majority”. A majority is 50% plus one. Sometimes a candidate wins the most votes but does not win a majority, especially when more than two parties have strong candidates. This is called a “plurality”, not a “majority”.
In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes, but won only a plurality, not a majority. Jackson also won the popular vote (which never officially matters). The decision went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House elected President John Quincy Adams. This was one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history and led to the emergency of the Democratic Party as the first “modern” political party in the U.S. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes.
The presidential elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000 were especially controversial and well worth studying.
The Electoral College must Certify the Election
Technically, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 people who are designated officials representing the electoral votes from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. These 538 representatives must officially certify the election. They are “expected” to vote in accordance with the electoral vote of their states (or congressional district in the cases of Maine and Nebraska). However, these 538 electors legally can vote for whomever they wish.
This electoral college body has never overturned the electoral map results, but this possibility exists. If you look at Minnesota in the map above, you will see a little circle with the number “1″. All ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes were “expected” to go to John Kerry, however, one of Minnesota’s electors voted for John Edwards instead of Kerry.
Implications of the General Election Rules: Red States vs. Blue States:
General election strategy necessarily focuses on attaining the 270 magic number. In recent presidential elections, the electoral map has been fairly static. News media have standardized the map discussion by always displaying Republican states in red and Democratic states in blue.
The map (above) of the 2004 election is essentially the “strategic starting point” for the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many states are considered “solidly red” or “solidly blue” (a.k.a., “safe” states). Recently, Republican candidates have won most of the Southern states and also the Western states between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states. Democratic candidates have won most of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast states.
General election campaign strategy focuses on trying to win the “swing states”. These may be states that recently voted for the Democratic candidate, but in other recent elections voted for the Republican. Some swing states consistently voted for one party, but only by very narrow margins. Also, some states change over time and come into “play”. Demographic changes and other internal political changes can move a state’s allegiance from one party to another. Any state that is in “play” for whatever reason is a swing state and also called a “battleground state”.
For the 2000 and 2004 elections, the following states were among the swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire. Most analysts expect these same states to be battleground states in 2008.
Barack Obama’s campaign hopes to put additional states in play. The Southwest may be changing enough for the Democrats to win at least one of these: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Also, Obama hopes to win at least one of these Southern states: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and maybe others. Obama could also win one or more Western states, such as South Dakota or Kansas.
John McCain’s campaign strategy involves winning most of the swing states from the last two elections and also trying to put Oregon and New Jersey into play.
Visit Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is a great resource and shows the electoral map of every presidential election in history and includes many details.
Quick History Lesson - the Election of 1876:
The Samuel Tilden-Rutherford Hayes election of 1876 was the ultimate political controversy with four disputed states, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. With no agreement on how to count the electoral votes of the disputed four states, Tilden had a plurality but not a majority. Think of the Gore vs. Bush Florida controversy in the 2000 election, then multiply it by four. The result was the infamous “Compromise of 1877″ or “Tilden-Hayes Compromise”, worked out via back-room deals. Republican Hayes was given the presidency over Democrat Tilden in exchange for a railroad in the South and Southwest. Most importantly, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction, thus opening the flood gates to extend Jim Crow laws denying civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 1st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
The Puerto Rico primary results are in: Clinton overwhelmed Obama 68% to 32%.
*************Â WRAPÂ ******************************Â
Today Hillary Clinton predictably and decisively defeated Barack Obama in Puerto Rico’s primary. Clinton gained 38 pledged delegates and Obama added 17, putting him within 48 delegates of clinching the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination.
This is a bit anti-climactic for the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s Democratic Party resolution of the Florida and Michigan controversies ended yet another avenue for Clinton to change the outcome. Puerto Rico’s primary gave Clinton a net gain of 21 delegates, but this is much too little, much too late.
In her victory speech, Hillary Clinton ended by promising repeatedly to “keep on fighting”. Obama also gave an interesting speech today at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. Obama’s speech focused on defeating John McCain in November.Â
Tuesday finally marks the end of the road. Soon “every vote will be counted” and Hillary Clinton loses another “talking point”.
I am happy to see Puerto Rico and all states/territories have a voice in the nomination process.
Hopefully you already know this:
Puerto Ricans are full U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico does not have any electoral votes for the general election because it is not a state. Many Puerto Rican voters are residents throughout the 50 states, especially in New York City, Chicago, and other urban areas.
Obligatory demographic discussion:
Obama needs to continue to improve his standing among Latino voters, but he already has some solid Latino support as a strong base on which to build. Latinos typically vote about 60% Democratic to 40% Republican, and often even higher for Democrats. Of course, Puerto Ricans are a separate demographic box than Mexican-Americans and other Latinos, but the voting patterns are similar inside the bigger Latino box. Puerto Ricans are among the most loyal Democratic Party voters of any demographic group. Obama could easily get overwhelming vote percentages from Latinos in the general election against John McCain.
*************Â BOX SCORE ************************
Puerto Rico
Delegates:Â Â Clinton: 38Â Â Â Â |Â Obama: 17
% of vote:Â Â Â Clinton: 68%Â |Â Obama: 32%
vote totals: Clinton: 263,120 |Â Obama: 121,458
keys to the game: Latino working class voters, lower-middle income, Clinton name recognition.
************* SCHEDULE Â ************************
2Â primaries contests remain (the number of delegates at stake is in parentheses):
- June 3rd: Montana (16) and South Dakota (15)
Also, we are waiting for approximately 200 super delegates to announce their intentions.
The last day is Tuesday!
************* STANDINGS ************************
*Delegate Count: Obama needs 48 more delegates to clinch the nomination.
Obama: 2070 (total), 1741 (pledged), 329 (super delegates)
Clinton:Â 1915 (total), 1624 (pledged), 291 (super delegates)
Edwards:Â 13 (total), 13Â (pledged), 0 (super delegates)
* Updated June 1, 2008, according to CNN.
2,118 delegates required to win the nomination.
Note on delegate counts: each news agency has its own set of numbers. This is primarily due to the complex rules involved in awarding delegates to the candidates. I’ve been using CNN as a baseline, but this is somewhat arbitrary and not an endorsement of CNN. Their website updates the count frequently and I find it easy to use and informative. See MSNBC and FoxNews for alternative delegate counts.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 30th, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Blog
HBO’s new movie “Recount” is an entertaining look at the controversial 2000 Presidential election results in Florida.
You don’t need to be an election geek to enjoy this film. “Recount” is a fun and educational way to revisit the 2000 Florida vote debacle. Everyone interested in the 2008 election should watch “Recount”.
Unfortunately, some people today still have a simplistic, uninformed view of the Florida election controversies. Some believe that George W. Bush won Florida fair and square. Those who think Al Gore won Florida may be correct, but “Recount” sets the record straight: Florida 2000 was a big, ugly mess with no clear winner.
“Recount” dramatically shows the many dimensions of the whole Florida vote battle as a series of controversies. Superb editing keeps a brisk pace. We see political insiders in emotional arguments over rules, angry protests, funny protests, frantic election officials, citizens illegally denied the right to vote, court proceedings in Florida and the Supreme Court. “Recount” spotlights the most important points but never bogs down into tedious detail. Who knew that dimpled chads could be so much fun? Watch “Recount” and you will really know and also care about chads, and especially, why election rules are so important.
Like all good historical movies, “Recount” is very accurate about the important facts but takes some dramatic license with the historical characters. I was disappointed with the screenplay’s portrayal of Warren Christopher (played by John Hurt), but that is a minor quibble. “Recount” is a literary tragedy: we already know the outcome but we are fascinated in watching the story unfold.
Precisely tabulating millions of votes will remain impossible for the foreseeable future. Have you ever experienced: a paper jam in a 3-hole punch or shredder or printer or copy machine or document feeder, a staple jam, a computer glitch, a typo? If you answered “yes”, then you get the idea - “stuff happens”. If you answered “no”, then you’ve never worked with information. We must do everything we can to attempt to count every vote correctly.Â
Much of the Gore vs. Bush legal battles involved the concept of voter intention. Many Floridians accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore, because some people (especially older voters with vision problems) were confused by the infamous “butterfly” ballot. “Recount” demystifies the 2000 Florida recount controversies. We see how missteps in the very practical “nuts and bolts” election mechanics ultimately determined who would be the next President of the United States.
Today’s computerized solutions worry me because the systems are unproven, and technology requires vigilant auditing and maximum security. The “old-fashioned” paper ballot method is open to human error and vote fraud. A consensus is forming that a combination of technology and paper is the best approach. Preventing cheating is paramount.
I remember when I was a kid, my parents took me along when they went to vote at their polling place in Chicago (during the Richard J. Daley years). The Democratic Party precinct captain was quite proud to show me how he could easily cancel a vote if he thought the voter was a Republican. That is my earliest memory of elections, and I guess that was my first step in starting this website.
Links about “Recount”:
Other political movies I highly recommend:
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Loading ...