If you listened last night to the “best political team in the country” you may have obtained an incorrect picture of the presidential elections. The total number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination this year is 2,025. However, the manner in which one accomplishes such a majority will be crucial in November.
This is because, in the general election for President, the number of Electoral College votes for each state is apportioned on a “winner-take-all” system, and not based on the proportion of votes as is the case in many Democratic caucuses and primaries. Winning by a majority in big states that are electoral-college rich is important to reach the magic number of 270 Electoral College votes to secure the presidency.
The record so far of the two candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination is given below. This is based on state-wide victories and adding up the Electoral College votes assigned to each state.
Hillary Clinton: 263 Electoral College votes
Barack Obama: 196 Electoral College votes
Counting victories by states at this stage of the nomination and counting the number of delegates are good mathematical exercises that provide fodder for the political pundits. However, too much stock should not be placed in such numbers because if a candidate cannot carry the majority in enough large states in November, the spin meisters themselves may have their wickets taken down by Chinamen (a left-arm leg spinner’s googly in the game of cricket).
7 comments:
Victory in big states may not convey all that is happening in electoral politics. When you compare and contrast the victories Clinton and Obama had we see some troubling and encouraging trends. Are people of smaller states more enlightened about race and politics? Are they more idealistic? Are they the future that we aspire? Are big state elctroate easily fooled with fear, uncertainlty, and deception? Do they have lesser capacity to think? Are they truly lemmings, bigots, or uneducated? Are they too busy with their rat races that they can not think for a better future for their progenies?
Very good points, Sree. But unless the election system is reformed and a new system put into place whereby the majority "voice of the people" is heard, we are stuck with the Electoral College and its associated problems. See an earlier blog of mine that appeared in January called The Odd Anomaly. We may experience a wrinkle in the election process, now that Ralph Nader has thrown his spoiler hat into the ring.
I dont believe that majority of the people vote basing their decision on national issues that affect the population. For example, things like race, color, gender, religious denomination, stand on abortion, gay rights, personal appearance etc really do not have anything to do governance capability. Unfortunately, these are what seem to drive voting decisions. Having said that, the math that you state is not so straightforward. I can put forward a case that many of the large delegate states are democratic and will vote the same way in Nov and if Obama is the democratic candidate, then there is a chance that he can do better in the "red-belt" states where he has had some impact.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107601/output/print
Amrity: I agree with you about the reasons as to why people vote as they do. The above article by Sharon Begley appeared in the Feb 2 issue of Newsweek magazine.
I hope you are right about Obama in November. I am not so optimistic about the Independent vote that he attracted if John McCain were to be an alternative as opposed to Clinton. I even know a few Democrats in California and Pennsylvania who have made up their minds to vote for McCain in November, now that he has secured the Republican nomination.
I think Obama needs to put forward some serious plans on accomplishing change. It cannot happen just "from the people standing up for something." On March 24, I will be attending another peace rally in Ames to end the War in Iraq. Many of us have stood in bitter cold temperatures protesting the war. But when the votes are not there in Washington to make change happen, how does the ordinary citizen "stand up for change?"
Hillary keeps speaking about the importance of the "big states" she is winning. I would love to ask her a question at a press conference. It would go as follows: "Mrs. Clinton you continually speak of the importance of your winning the big states. Would you please list five little states and explain why they are unimportant?"
I think the time has come to see how many Electrol votes Johm Mccani has Vs Clinton/Obama. As someone wrote. JM is a repulican who democrats can easily like. It apperas that there is still room for old men in this country
The voting percentage in primaries and caucuses is typically 10 to 12 percent of eligible voters. This year Obama has inspired and fired up so many voters that the percentage has increased to almost 25 percent for the Democrats. In the primaries and caucuses, the Democrats have voted in much larger numbers than the Republicans in almost every state so far. In the general elections, the largest turnout was 114 million in 1992 (about 60 percent of eligible voters) and the second largest was 111 million in 2000 (58 percent).
There are around 220 million eligible voters in 2008. If the voting trend in this year’s Democratic primaries and caucuses continues to be the same in the general election, John McCain may not win the majority in any state at all, and thus end up with zero Electoral College votes, not even winning the 10 Electoral College votes in his home state of Arizona.
It is to John McCain’s advantage to encourage Ralph Nader to run as an Independent. In the 2000 election, Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida which may have gone to Al Gore. If they did, then Bush would not have been president in spite of the advantage he obtained from the confusing ballots (hanging chads) in some of the precincts. That year, about 192 million eligible voters (less 9) were disenfranchised when the presidency was determined by a single vote margin in the US Supreme Court. It did not matter if you were from a big state or a little state or a federal district like Washington D.C. Your vote simply did not count.
Many Independents and Republicans have not shown up for the 2008 primaries and caucuses. Nobody, especially the pollsters and pundits, knows how these folks are going to vote. With Nader in the mix, John McCain can try to snatch popular victories in states, because Nader may draw Independent voters (and perhaps others) away from the Democrats. For instance, in a worst-case scenario, a one-vote majority in the popular vote in California gives 55 Electoral College votes to the winner, and zero Electoral College votes for second place.
To realize the maxim of “One Person, One Vote,” and to make everyone’s vote count whether you are from a big state or a little state, substantive reform is needed in the anachronistic electoral system that is in place today. I am surprised that no one in Congress has pushed for such reform in the last 8 years since the 2000 debacle.
Post a Comment