Fun with Electoral Math

It's also interesting to using the year menu to view the electoral makeup of previous elections, going all the way back to 1789. For example, compare 1976 to 1980 to get an idea of what a disastrous presidency Jimmy Carter had.

The interactive map is really interesting. It even updates the winning combinations and probability results (again, based on current state polling data) as you assign different states. As soon as you assign two of the big swing states to Obama, the number of winning combinations for McCain drop into single digits. In fact, even if you assign every state except the FL, PA, OH, and MI to red, Obama is still a 54% to 46% favorite to win.

Also, I never knew DC was an island off the coast of North Carolina. And we need to put a fence on the AZ and NM border so illegal aliens from Hawaii don't sneak across!

Once again, OH is the battleground. If all other states go exactly like the last election, OH will break the tie.

Shhhhhhhhhh! We don't want the moronic racist rednecks to find this sort of thing out or they will start plotting early. I am so sick of hearing people talk about the "A" word and how if Obama is elected he will be "A"'d within the first few days of inauguration. People talk about it, in bars and on the street. And I always tell them to shut up and stop talking about it. You can talk about this cool electoral site, but this 97% number just got me to thinking. People are so stupid. Especially in less culturally enlightened areas.

@Khaaaaansumating:

Too late. Republicans have been winning elections for along time for a reason. The Republican political operatives are smarter and more cunning than dumb elitist Democrats. While Republicans embrace "rednecks", Democrats mock them than getting all pissy about losing elections.

Remember the saying "Republicans are good at winning elections, Democrats are good at governing."

@SoulCamp:

I'm a big fan of the electoral college. Democracy is not only about votes, it's about equity.

As the US is a quasi-federated nation, the electoral college brings a check and balance into the system, much like how each state gets two Senators regardless of population.

Why should California, New York and Texas be the only votes that matter? I like the idea that candidates need to win votes in the smaller states as well. Electoral college ensure that.

@MisterDarcy: Ugh. Tired old high school U.S. Government 101 propaganda. Unfortunately, it's entirely bullshit. The electoral college does not create equality, it disenfranchises voters. The arguments that the electoral college gives proportional power to smaller, less-populous states is a farce. When was the last time Rhode Island or North Dakota played a major role in a presidential election? The truth is that 12 of the 13 least populous states are non-competitive in presidential elections, because most small states tend to be one-party states, and the winner-take-all rule in use by 48 of the 50 states all but nullifies the supposed benefits. Instead, candidates focus the vast majority of their campaign on the minority of swing states that actually affect the outcome of the election.

Case in point - the 13 smallest states have roughly the same population as Ohio. Excluding New Hampshire (the only competitive small state), the remaining 12 states have a total of 40 electoral votes. Ohio has 20. According to theory, those 12 smaller states should have a much greater influence over the presidential election as Ohio. However, as we know, in reality this is simply not the case.

The facts are that the electoral college disenfranchises voters in large states and one-party states by giving a disproportionate amount of power to those in the swing states. The vote of a Democrat in Texas is essentially worthless. As is that of a Republican in New York. Or *anyone* voting for a third party *anywhere*. You could not even leave your house and your vote would have the same net effect on the election - none. Meanwhile, voter turnout in OH and FL *will* decide the next election, just as it did in the previous two. This is not fair or equal. It is retarded.

And I won't even begin to go into the problems with the actual system of electors or the pitfalls of not having a federally standardized balloting and voting process.

It's the 21st century. Time for this country to stop relying solely on the obsolete ideas of 250 years ago - the same ones that were responsible for such great ideas as the "three-fifths" compromise - and start taking some *real* responsibility as citizens of a so-called "modern" democracy. Abolish the electoral college in favor of the popular vote - one in which EVERY person's vote is counted equally. And while we're at it, let's replace the archaic single vote system with a more progressive multiple vote system, like ranked or scored voting. Unless we, as a people, decide to take responsibility to update our system of government to reflect the changes in modern society, I believe democracy in this country will ultimately fail.