The Official 2008 Electoral College Prediction Thread

[siron]

And I am sure you are wrong.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

There's nothing wrong with the EC per se, given the federalist nature of the US. The problem, as Zkrib is noting, is that the EC doesn't have proportional representation. The obvious fix is to keep the EC, keep the winner-take-all system of EC voting, but make the EC count proportional by taking the two "senatorial" votes away from every state (and DC). Such a fix would be consistent with both basic notions of democratic fairness and with American federalism.

[Wiglaf]

So I assume you'd get rid of the senate too, then, right?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
There's nothing wrong with the EC per se,

...except that things can be more democratic by going to a national presidential election based upon a popular vote.

My point was that, for political reasons, the necessary amendment will never pass.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I just can't help but laugh at those of you who think McCain will get +300 EVs.

He would have to keep (stats are from Pollster.net):

NEW MEXICO - O +6.2
IOWA - O +9.8 (!)
FLORIDA - M +2.1
OHIO - M +2.9
COLORADO - O +3
INDIANA - M +2.5
NORTH CAROLINA - M +1.2
VIRGINIA - M +0.4
NEVADA - M +1.8

Then, he'd have to take:

MINNESOTA - O +3.2
NEW HAMPSHIRE - Tie
or
PENNSYLVANIA - O +3.3
or
MICHIGAN - O +4.3

He could still get +300 and lose NM and IA if he picked up NH AND two other Kerry states. But come on, its like a 15% chance Obama won't keep all the Kerry states and not pick up Iowa, the state that made his campaign.

McCain could win, but he won't get over 300.

My Prediction: Kerry + IA + NM + CO + VA + NV - NH =

OBAMA - 287 MCCAIN - 251

I'll check back after the post-debate polls come out this week.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So I assume you'd get rid of the senate too, then, right?

Hell yes. That, or make it semi-proportional and cut it down to ~30 members max.

[Wiglaf]

I'm sure folks from the other 45 states will be glad they fought a war of independence only to lose their representation again because some Carnegie Mellon computer science superstar and the hockey fetishizer from Ontario decided to fix what wasn't broken.

[gwillybj]

I don't know all the politico-speak, so I'll just post my results:
McCain: 272-266

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I'm sure folks from the other 45 states will be glad they fought a war of independence only to lose their representation again because some Carnegie Mellon computer science superstar and the hockey fetishizer from Ontario decided to fix what wasn't broken.

I'm not from Ontario, Clay.

OR SHOULD I SAY RUBEN.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I'll re-iterate my foresight full predictions from this post made in mid June on a similar thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5333178#post5333178

Obama 385 / McCain 153 for a 232 EV margin, popular vote margin 8%

I believe this makes me the most extremely favorable Obama prediction.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by gwillybj
I don't know all the politico-speak, so I'll just post my results:
McCain: 272-266

Obviously you don't know, because given which states are solid and which are in play, that number is virtually impossible

Bush defeated Gore 278-260. The only Bush states that have 6 EVs are Kansas, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and even though three states with 3 EVs looked like they were in play a month ago (Montana, Alaska, and North Dakota), they are now solidly McCain.

[gwillybj]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Vermont to McCain

Vermont generally does not vote for a Republican to be President. Even when their own Governor is Republican, it's not common.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So I assume you'd get rid of the senate too, then, right?

Loathe as I am to argue with a DL, I'll point out that that doesn't follow. The Senate's 2-per-state system of representation balances the simple proportional representation of the House. But -- to use your analogy -- having the EC be both winner-take-all at the state level (so that 100% of a state's votes goes to the candidate who won 50.1% of the vote) and non-proportional is like having only the Senate and no House.

If you want balance -- the way the House and the Senate balance each other -- then either the EC should be proportional or it shouldn't be winner-take-all. The latter could be achieved by having electors vote by congressional district (with the two extra electors voting according to state outcome), but proportional distribution of EC votes would be a cleaner fix.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by gwillybj

Vermont generally does not vote for a Republican to be President. Even when their own Governor is Republican, it's not common.

Hey! I was trying to be nice, okay? I was already predicting Obamerica would get over 300 electoral votes. Why not throw a few to McCain? I wouldn't want him to think he's a total loser.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I will go with an interesting pick and say 269-269.

JM

Totally possible. Obama takes Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico. McCain takes New Hampshire. All others go 2004.

269-269