The Associated Press reviews several national political prognosticators to find they "appear uniformly certain that presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain can count on West Virginia's five electoral votes."
Those who paint the Mountain State as "solid red" on their Electoral College maps include:
- The Cook Political Report;
- The Rothenberg Political Report;
- Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball;
- Congressional Quarterly;
- Pollster.com
The various analysts appear to differ as to the national outcome, however. Pollster.com, for instance, averages state-by-state polling to put Barack Obama above the needed majority of 270 electoral votes; even with all the toss-up states, the site's approach gives McCain just 254 votes.
3 comments:
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
susan
You presume we live in a Democracy. Our founding fathers (rightly) scorned democracy. The US is a republic, the political structure was deliberately structured to pit different special interests against each other. The differences in the way members of the house, senate and president were elected were intended to assure that it actually required a supermajority to accomplish anything. Earlier experiences with the Articles of confederation made it clear to the constitutional convention that a powerful federal government was necescary, the house was to be directly elected, the senate was to be elected by state legislatures, the electoral college was intended to strike a balance between the these. Abolishing the electoral college will change politics, but not necescarily in positive ways. A national popular vote presumes that candidates already campaign to win the popular vote - but they do not. A national popular vote would dissenfranchise much of the south and midwest. No presidential candidate would campaign outside the major cities, nor take interest in issues aside from those of cities. The fatal flaw of democracy is that government is necescarily inefficient and the tangible benefits virtualy every group takes from it must be less than what they contribute. In a democracy there is little interest in isssues beyond those of the majority. Everyone else is in effect disenfranchised, and quickly everyone else is taxed to assure that the majority receives the lionshare of government benefits. Today we justifiably complain about pork laden farm bills, But we miss the fact that no city in this country fully bears the cost of the services it provides to its residents. IF you really want democracy, then forget a national popular vote for president - decide all issues by popular vote.
Any kind of scheme that abolishes or makes irrelevant the Electoral College gives permanent advantage to a few major metropolitan areas. Rural areas will lose the influence they currently enjoy. The Founding Fathers intended for a balance to exist between the power of small states and the power of large states. Abolishing the Electoral College erodes that balance.
Those who advocate abolishing the Electoral College do not care that they will eliminate the electoral voice of the people of West Virginia.
Post a Comment