Could It Be That Election Might Be A GWB Landslide?

[nakedemperor]

Seriously. It doesn't make sense to me that some votes matter more than others. If more people want candidate A, why should where they live factor into candidate A's electability more or less than another person's vote?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

http://www.tripias.com/state/ is a great breakdown of the electoral college votes...what is likely to happen and what is unknown, as well....

Here is a summary, and you can check the site to see the state breakdown:

Bush: 291 Electoral Votes (174 likely, 117 uncertain)
Kerry: 247 Electoral Votes (157 likely, 90 uncertain)

But, if there are over 118 million voters, the trend could lean more toward Kerry's favor.....or so I have been told.

 

[007]

OK. electoral vote: Bush gets ~285-295 and wins. Kerry gets the remainder and loses. I had a state breakout somewhere but I lost it.

Popular vote (that doesn't count, thanks MJDuncan) I've got Bush 51-48.

I agree.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I personally believe we should do as Canada and have translation in the electoral college.

Ex.: State X has 10 electoral votes. 10 percent of the pop votes green, 50 votes rep. and 40 votes dem. 1 of the electoral college votes goes to the green candidate, 5 go to the republican and 4 go to the democrat. This winner-take-all system we have is not very democratic.

State X could have 51 percent rep. and the voices of 49 percent of the population are erased in the electoral college voting system.

Just a quick note, Canada does NOT have a proportional representation system or "translation". Therefore, popular vote, like the United States, does not matter. Some systems that employ proportional representation are: Germany (to some extent), Netherlands, Austria and Switzeland. It is predominantly a post-WWII European construct, thought it does exist beyond Europe in for instance, Chile and Israel.

Canada's system is parliamentary. In short, imagine each riding being a small state of 1 electoral vote. If you win the riding, you win the spot in the House of Commons (Think house of representatives) and the number of representatives you have in the House of Commons determines who becomes the Prime Minister (PM). Canada does not really have an executive branch, save during a Majority Government where the Cabinet under the PM assumes that authority. Canada has an upper house, which is unelected, appointed, and frankly, useless.

What I admire with the US system is that even though it is dual-party, individuals have a free vote (ie a REP can vote for DEM bill). In Canada, that is grounds for a representative to by expelled from the party. Proportional representation is interesting and may be a good system, but fails to form strong government.

P.S. So much for being brief.

 

[Bonnie]

This election will be as close if not closer than 2000. There will be no landslide here.

acludem

Can we put you on permanent record on this? LOL

 

[musicman]

Seriously. It doesn't make sense to me that some votes matter more than others. If more people want candidate A, why should where they live factor into candidate A's electability more or less than another person's vote?

Actually, it's a very good question, NE - and one that, I'm ashamed to say, I was appallingly ignorant about before the 2000 election. If nothing else, that election provided a first-rate, real-time civics lesson.

The far-seeing wisdom of our founding fathers is a constant source of amazement to me. Even 200+ years ago, they understood that the respective needs and desires of cosmopolitan and rural voters were vastly different. A one man-one vote system would give a ridiculous advantage to, say, the voter from New York City. He would likely have an entirely different view of government from that of the Virginia farmer, but his vote would carry more weight on the sheer srtength of city population numbers. Voters from less populous, rural areas would inevitably (and rightly) begin to feel frozen out of the process. They'd have been no more a part of a representative government than they had been before the Revolution.

 

[insein]

I would have to think that the media is walking a fine line between keeping the dem base energized enough about Kerry's chances but keeping them interested enough to go out and vote. However the closer the race, the more the Republicans will get out the vote.

Should have larger than normal turnout numbers for sure but i have been saying this for awhile, i feel it will be a landslide victory. I hope for the sake of the coutnry it is. because we all know if its a close Bush victory, the lawyers will bog it down for the next year or so.

 

[Bonnie]

How's he going to change one in ten minds over the next 3 weeks?

He's 48-49ish right now, how on earth do you think he's going 58?? Some state polls don't even poll college kids (e.g. Wisconsin) who vote majority Democratic.

I'm still not sure how the electoral college "evens the playing field". Why isn't there just majority rule in presidential elections. One vote = one vote and everybody gets one vote (in most cases.. =P ).

What's the logic behind it?

Not criticizing, just interested.

Your right NE MM has been handing out a lot of undies on campus. That could really change things..........Sorry couldn't resist..........you are becoming my favorite Lib

 

[Bonnie]

Actually if you look at a lot of the states Bush is ahead in, it's by huge margins, 15 to 20 points in some states. I ahve been feeling for a while now that the polls are just not accurate, because Bush has had such great momentum since the convention.
I could be very off on this but i too feel the election may not be a landslide, but it will be decisive.

 

[acludem]

You absolutely can put my on permanant record of my earlier statement. This election will come down to a few thousand votes in a few states that will ultimately decide the electoral college. Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania are a few of these states, there are others. This election will be extremely, extremely close. The larger the turnout, the better Kerry's chances are. Why? Because those who generally don't vote are more likely to vote Democratic (i.e. young voters).

acludem

 

[007]

The larger the turnout, the better Kerry's chances are. Why? Because those who generally don't vote are more likely to vote Democratic (i.e. young voters).

acludem

That may be true. But I personally know a whole bunch of young voters, and not a one of them plans on voting. It's a "hassle". You see when they poll these people by phone, all they have to do is speak. Voting on the other hand requires a trip downtown to the voting both. A "hassle". So that's why I believe polls aren't worth spit. Half the people that say who they're voting for won't even show up. The cars out of gas, got to work, the girl friend called, stopped at the bar instead, got high with the boys... the list of reasons young people don't vote goes on and on and on. Their immaturity plays heavy into their reasoning that it just isn't that important. Sure they'll "tell" you who they'd vote for, but "doing it" is something competely different.

Sad story for kerry... to get elected he has to depend on all the "un"dependables. That fact should tell you something about liberals.

 

[nakedemperor]

I worked in Wisconsin this summer registering voters. As is the case in most battleground states, the polls are decieving because they do not take into account the younger voters who do not have home phone numbers/ have never voted before. These people are predominantly leaning Kerry, and could tip the scales.

Second, the left is extraordinarily energized-- voter registration efforts in Democratic regions have been unbelievably successful (130,000 new voters register in Wisco where I worked). People on the left really, really don't want to see four more years, and thus will show up at the polls in droves. My mother has been interviewing dozens of voters in Florida, and a very common sentiment among conservatives is that they couldn't stomach voting for a Democrat, but they don't want to vote for Dubya. Many of them said they wouldn't be voting at all.

I just feel like between voter registration efforts, the Vote or Die and other young-voter turnout initiatives, an energized left (more so than the right, to clarify), are going to make this a very close race, either way you slice it. So no....I don't think it'll be a landslide for Bush.

That being said, the conservatives on this board are far more energized than your average conservative-- why else would they be here?

 

[musicman]

The youth vote did wonders for George McGovern.

 

[007]

I worked in Wisconsin this summer registering voters. As is the case in most battleground states, the polls are decieving because they do not take into account the younger voters who do not have home phone numbers/ have never voted before. These people are predominantly leaning Kerry, and could tip the scales.

Second, the left is extraordinarily energized-- voter registration efforts in Democratic regions have been unbelievably successful (130,000 new voters register in Wisco where I worked). People on the left really, really don't want to see four more years, and thus will show up at the polls in droves. My mother has been interviewing dozens of voters in Florida, and a very common sentiment among conservatives is that they couldn't stomach voting for a Democrat, but they don't want to vote for Dubya. Many of them said they wouldn't be voting at all.

I just feel like between voter registration efforts, the Vote or Die and other young-voter turnout initiatives, an energized left (more so than the right, to clarify), are going to make this a very close race, either way you slice it. So no....I don't think it'll be a landslide for Bush.

That being said, the conservatives on this board are far more energized than your average conservative-- why else would they be here?

I think in you're young eyes ne, it looks that way. But in reality, it's the same way everytime. There's no real huge difference between this voting season and any other. And YOUNG people are the most UNRELIABLE lot in the country. There's just no way you could DEPEND on them to vote. And myself having older parents, Dad 77 and Ma 74, I know what they think just as most of their friends, and that's that they wouldn't vote for kerry if it was the devil himself running against him. So I think the rosey picture of enthusiam here about the young vote, and dissenfranchised older people you paint is a little skewed with your own hopes.

(I knew I left wisconsin for good reasons. Now I know one more.)

 

[Bonnie]

I worked in Wisconsin this summer registering voters. As is the case in most battleground states, the polls are decieving because they do not take into account the younger voters who do not have home phone numbers/ have never voted before. These people are predominantly leaning Kerry, and could tip the scales.

Second, the left is extraordinarily energized-- voter registration efforts in Democratic regions have been unbelievably successful (130,000 new voters register in Wisco where I worked). People on the left really, really don't want to see four more years, and thus will show up at the polls in droves. My mother has been interviewing dozens of voters in Florida, and a very common sentiment among conservatives is that they couldn't stomach voting for a Democrat, but they don't want to vote for Dubya. Many of them said they wouldn't be voting at all.

I just feel like between voter registration efforts, the Vote or Die and other young-voter turnout initiatives, an energized left (more so than the right, to clarify), are going to make this a very close race, either way you slice it. So no....I don't think it'll be a landslide for Bush.

That being said, the conservatives on this board are far more energized than your average conservative-- why else would they be here?

I have been working here in my state which is no conservative place by any means, and I can tell you to definately not underestimate the energy of college Reblicans and young voters here or anywhere else.......One more thing to consider is the backlash that is going to result from anger regarding the relentless Bush bashing by the media, Hollywierd, and the kerry campaign.

 

[phadras]

then your experience is skewed by the near commies in that part of the state..

Young people gonna vote demo huh? Then why do most surveys of young voters demonstrate they are more conservative than in the past...?

Wishful thinking on your part... You know the old maxim.. "Wish in one hand and piss in the other and see which fills faster,....

 

[Bonnie]

then your experience is skewed by the near commies in that part of the state..

Young people gonna vote demo huh? Then why do most surveys of young voters demonstrate they are more conservative than in the past...?

Wishful thinking on your part... You know the old maxim.. "Wish in one hand and piss in the other and see which fills faster,....

I have never heard that maxim before, but it sure is colorful

 

[007]

I have never heard that maxim before, but it sure is colorful

Actually, it's "wish in one hand and *shit* in the other".

 

[beemerup]

I can only hope for a landslide, at least a large enough margin that the results won't be tied up in the courts.

 

[Avatar4321]

The larger the turnout, the better Kerry's chances are. Why? Because those who generally don't vote are more likely to vote Democratic (i.e. young voters).

acludem

Why exactly are you libs so happy about the fact that the uninformed voters usually vote for you? Ill never understand that.