[Ω]

Thanks all for clearing that up.

I can understand the need to try and make sure that everyone is represented, but surely instead of it being an all or nothing affair (as far as EVs are concerned), a proportional system would be more representative of what of the people wanted. Leave each state with the same amount of EVs they currently have and if you get 60% of the vote in that state, you get 60% of the EV's.

The only real issue I can see is possibly that every state might turn into a Florida, where the results are contested.

Has anyone looked at past results to see how this would have effected past elections???

[dcolton]

Originally posted by _?_:
Thanks all for clearing that up.

I can understand the need to try and make sure that everyone is represented, but surely instead of it being an all or nothing affair (as far as EVs are concerned), a proportional system would be more representative of what of the people wanted. Leave each state with the same amount of EVs they currently have and if you get 60% of the vote in that state, you get 60% of the EV's.

The only real issue I can see is possibly that every state might turn into a Florida, where the results are contested.

Has anyone looked at past results to see how this would have effected past elections???

But that is not our system of government. Why would majority rule in general elections while a proportionate system is installed for the Electoral College?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by _?_:
Thanks all for clearing that up.

I can understand the need to try and make sure that everyone is represented, but surely instead of it being an all or nothing affair (as far as EVs are concerned), a proportional system would be more representative of what of the people wanted. Leave each state with the same amount of EVs they currently have and if you get 60% of the vote in that state, you get 60% of the EV's.

The only real issue I can see is possibly that every state might turn into a Florida, where the results are contested.

Has anyone looked at past results to see how this would have effected past elections???

There are some states (Nebraska and Maine) that don't have an all or nothing electoral vote thing. There the eldctoral votes are distributed proportionally.

Here is a fun read about the history of the EC:
http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stu...al_college.htm

[RAILhead]

Today's data: Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Bush 311, Kerry 223.

Also:

Ohio: Bush 52%, Kerry 42%
Florida: Bush 51%, Kerry 46%
Wisconsin: Bush 52%, Kerry 44%
Illinois: Kerry 49%, Bush 45%
New Jersey: Bush 49%, Kerry 45% (2000 result: _Gore by 15.8%!)

Maury

[Zimphire]

There goes the margin of error.

[Zimphire]

Railhead did you check this out?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/records.html

I bit biased there don't you think?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Railhead did you check this out?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/records.html

I bit biased there don't you think?

Oh yeah, he's a blatant Democrat, and he admits it. I use him, though, because he updates daily. If you go to his FAQs page, he has the following:

I hate this site. Is there one run by a Republican?
Yes. Take a look at electionprojection.com. It is strongly biased in favor of George Bush.

At least he seems to be honest and -- dare I say it -- fair and balanced!

Maury

[voodoo]

Looks like Kerry isn't winning much in Florida by kicking Nader off the ticket. :/

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Oh yeah, he's a blatant Democrat, and he admits it. I use him, though, because he updates daily

Yeah I noticed no Kerry military record link.

At least he seems to be honest and -- dare I say it -- fair and balanced!

Maury

Yeah he isn't trying to distort the poll numbers. And people can't call the site biased.

[BlackGriffen]

Eeeouch. Kerry needs to do something but quick.

Pollkatz's graph has had a steady Bush advantage over the last couple of days. Kerry 266, Bush 272.

BG

[PacHead]

Newest Gallup poll - - - BUSH leads by 14 ! ! ! !

Go Kerry, Go CBS-Rather, Go Michael Moore, Go retards and liars ! You are doing a great job !

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r/campaign_rdp

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
But that is not our system of government. Why would majority rule in general elections while a proportionate system is installed for the Electoral College?

The proportional division of electoral votes is our original system. The electors didn't have to vote in a group, they could make up their own minds and vote for whomever they pleased as individuals. It's not proportionate vs. majority rule, it's proportionate vs. winner-take-all. Right now most states use winner-take-all, but there's no reason they have to.

And the electoral college was neither intended to nor does protect small state voters. With the winner-take-all system especially, small state voters are completely ignored because they total up to nothing.

[Spliffdaddy]

CNN Headline News reports that "Kerry and Bush are now in a dead heat".

Gotta love that spin.

When Kerry was ahead by 4 points they said Kerry was "leading in the polls."

When Bush is ahead by 14 points they claim it's a 'dead heat'.

[RAILhead]

Here are today's numbers...

Electoral-Vote.com: Bush 307, Kerry 211.

Maury

[Buckaroo]

I suspect that the final decision in most peoples mind is going to be that people may not be willing to change to an unknown/questionable leader during time of war. Heck, Kerry turned traitor, and bad mouthed our troops back in the 70's, people don't want to hear it again.

To top it off, those fake memos are doing some harm to the Democrats credibility. I suspect that Bush will win with aprox. the same states he won in 2000, possibly picking up a few borderline states. It ain't going to be a landslide, but atleast we won't have to worry about getting the courts involved.

[Buckaroo]

Right now, Kerry's biggest mistake is ever mentioning Iraq ever again in a speech. It makes him look like the traitor he was in the 70's.

He should only discuss what he can do for the country, then maybe he might stand a chance.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Right now, Kerry's biggest mistake is ever mentioning Iraq ever again in a speech. It makes him look like the traitor he was in the 70's.

He should only discuss what he can do for the country, then maybe he might stand a chance.

I disagree.

[Buckaroo]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I disagree.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep19.html


Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: _ Kerry 207 _ Bush 331

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:


http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep19.html


Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: _ Kerry 207 _ Bush 331

Um what was that post all about?

[Zimphire]

You disagreed. He was showing you were it was true that it has hurt him.

Notice his numbers have DROPPED HARD since it all came out.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You disagreed. He was showing you were it was true that it has hurt him.

Notice his numbers have DROPPED HARD since it all came out.

Not only that, but the thread [b]is[b] about the Electoral College numbers...

Maury

[voodoo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
[B]Not only that, but the thread [b]is about the Electoral College numbers...

Maury

That it is.

There was no connection made between lower Kerry polls and that Kerry mentions Iraq though. So why would one post today's polls as a reply to someone who disagrees with that claim. One does not prove the other.

For instance, I think Kerry should stop thinking so much about flowers and chocolates. If he'd stop that he may have a chance. Proof? Just look at today's polls.

[MindFad]

Yeah, but what kind of flowers and chocolates?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Yeah, but what kind of flowers and chocolates?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
[B]Not only that, but the thread [b]is about the Electoral College numbers...

Maury

Of course!

[RAILhead]

Electoral-Vote.com: Bush 327, Kerry 211

RasmussenReorts.com: Bush 213, Kerry 175

RealClearPolitics.com: Bush 284, Kerry 214

Are people still wanting me to keep up with daily numbers, or has this thread gone the way of the dinosaur?

Maury

[voodoo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Electoral-Vote.com: Bush 327, Kerry 211

RasmussenReorts.com: Bush 213, Kerry 175

RealClearPolitics.com: Bush 284, Kerry 214

Are people still wanting me to keep up with daily numbers, or has this thread gone the way of the dinosaur?

Maury

I appreciate this thread. It is very interesting.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Electoral-Vote.com: Bush 327, Kerry 211

RasmussenReorts.com: Bush 213, Kerry 175

RealClearPolitics.com: Bush 284, Kerry 214

Are people still wanting me to keep up with daily numbers, or has this thread gone the way of the dinosaur?

Maury

I very much appreciate the Rasmussen numbers - because it's one poll it uses only one methodology, and thus will tend to be more self consistent.

Pollkatz has been annoyingly quiet of late, though. So, I'll just post a link with excerpts of a WSJ piece:

WASHINGTON -- Widely divergent poll results in recent days underscore a paradox of the 2004 presidential race: Despite all the surveys, it may be the toughest election in memory for anyone to track.

Opinion polls themselves had been getting harder to conduct long before the matchup between President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. The reasons range from growing reluctance to participate in surveys to increasing reliance on cellphones rather than the land lines pollsters have long used to ensure demographic and geographic balance in surveys.

But this year's bitter presidential contest has heaped on new challenges. They include an exceptionally close race and a polarized electorate that magnifies the consequence of different polling methods. In addition, unprecedented voter-mobilization drives by both parties make it especially tough for pollsters to say which voters probably will show up on Election Day.

"It makes it harder" to forecast the likely electorate, says Fred Steeper, a longtime pollster for Mr. Bush. In the six weeks to Election Day on Nov. 2, he adds, disparate polls may reflect sampling error and methodological differences more often than shifting opinion. "My advice to the consumer is ... the day-to-day reports of polling will exaggerate the changes in this race."
[...]

There is, of course, more to read if you follow the link. It's an interesting read about why Gallup's numbers are what they are and why all these polls seem to get different results.

What the site I linked to likes to recommend (dailykos) is that instead of looking at poll numbers, one should look at the trends within one poll (ie changes in numbers) to see where the race is going. There's a somewhat sound justification for doing this: by subtracting two numbers that were obtained in the same way, one tends to reduce systematic errors. For example, say a poll inaccurately swings the results by a couple of % one way because of the way they chose to analyze the data. Subtracting the results tends to remove that bias because it is, more or less, present in both numbers.

I know, it's funny for me to mention something like that as the starter of the thread, but this thread is more about enjoying the horse race than anything.

BlackGriffen

[djohnson]

I enjoy the links every single day.

[Ω]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I enjoy the links every single day.

I don't know about "enjoying" them at the moment, but I do read them

This thread is one of the few in the Pol Lounge that actually has some interesting dialogue, where people look at the ramifications of actions without too much bickering. Where we can say "Oh, looks like that worked....".

[GeeYouEye]

I found electoral-vote.com elsewhere, but I do appreciate the links to the other sites.

The thing about the Colorado proposal is that it's blatantly partisan, and in general not a good idea. For the former, consider that the same thing was proposed in CA... and was branded as "undemocratic and unreasonable". For the latter, it means that, should other states adopt a similar thing, and possibly even without (depending on which states go which way), is that it means it's possible for neither candidate to get the 270 needed to win; so it goes to the House. Given the very divided and partisan nature of the House these days, I don't want them electing the President, no matter which side of the aisle the majority sits on.

[voodoo]

I think the US should change the way a president is elected so the majority of the US people would choose the president. Not a minority like happened in 2000.

[Ω]

Unfortunately all elections are flawed.

In reality the best person for the job will never be able to run due to the process, and in all likelihood would never want the job in the first place!

It is the system at the present, and we will have to live with it

[BlackGriffen]

I've written extensively on possible replacements for the electoral college. The simplest one is: the winner is the one who gets the most votes from those who get some minimum fraction of the vote (eg 1/3) in some other fraction of the states (eg 2/3) - with an instant runoff of some kind between the two most popular candidates if nobody meets the requirement.

That's not entirely germane to the thread, though.

For today's results, I recommend this: . <-grain of salt

Electoral-vote.com has Kerry surging: Kerry 239, Bush 256, tied 43. The grain of salt comes from the fact that most of the new results are Zogby, who tends to be anti-incumbent (even in the Clinton days).
Pollkatz's graph shows something similar: Kerry 282, Bush 256. Though the origin of the change is likely the same Zogby results, so the depicted shift probably requires that same grain of salt.

This does show, however, my point that a few % in key states can make for wild swings in the electoral college. Just getting Jersey back, for instance would put Kerry in the lead again in electoral-vote.com's rankings.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I've written extensively on possible replacements for the electoral college. The simplest one is: the winner is the one who gets the most votes from those who get some minimum fraction of the vote (eg 1/3) in some other fraction of the states (eg 2/3) - with an instant runoff of some kind between the two most popular candidates if nobody meets the requirement.

That's not entirely germane to the thread, though.

For today's results, I recommend this: . <-grain of salt

Electoral-vote.com has Kerry surging: Kerry 239, Bush 256, tied 43. The grain of salt comes from the fact that most of the new results are Zogby, who tends to be anti-incumbent (even in the Clinton days).
Pollkatz's graph shows something similar: Kerry 282, Bush 256. Though the origin of the change is likely the same Zogby results, so the depicted shift probably requires that same grain of salt.

This does show, however, my point that a few % in key states can make for wild swings in the electoral college. Just getting Jersey back, for instance would put Kerry in the lead again in electoral-vote.com's rankings.

BlackGriffen

I'd be very surprised if Arkansas goes anywhere but to Bush. But what blows me away is that Zogby has Maryland exactly tied. Anyone who knows Maryland will know how remarkable that is. Notwithstanding the fact that it now has its first Republican governor since Agnew, the state is a solid Democratic stronghold. It should be absolutely safe for Kerry. So either the poll is off, or there is something quite interesting going on in this campaign.

[BlackGriffen]

Kerry may be focusing too much on the battleground states. That should change, at least a little, as he has a string of national appearances coming up. Then there's also the debates.

He may be forced to do some home turf defense with more than free publicity before this is over, though.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think the US should change the way a president is elected so the majority of the US people would choose the president. Not a minority like happened in 2000.

Which would be even LESS FAIR.

BTW Voodoo you know that thousands of Democrats voted twice. So the "More people voted for Gore" statement is a bit iffy since it was SO CLOSE.

What we do know is more Democrats voted twice. Of ALL the people who voted twice, 12% were Republican, and 68% were Democrat.

That tells you who the real cheaters are.

[Zimphire]

BTW Black http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/ is a HIGHLY left leaning page and it's designer needs to learn how to code.

Actually BOTH pages are highly left. The other however seems to be a bit more HONEST when it comes to polls.

Bush is still leading in the double digits.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think the US should change the way a president is elected so the majority of the US people would choose the president. Not a minority like happened in 2000.

If Gore had been elected, it still would have been a minority. Both had less than 50% of the popular vote. FYI.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bush is still leading in the double digits.

According to what? That Time magazine poll, which was debunked shortly after its release? Rasmussen (one of the more right-leaning pollsters) said that it was more like 3%.

Personally, I am also bothered by the left slant of Electoral-vote.com, but I don't think it affects the results much. Really just the commentary. He seems committed to showing accurate results from the latest polls, and I don't think he'd exclude results that weren't in line with his political beliefs. And I'm really not convinced that bending or faking poll results would be all that beneficial. No one with half a brain is going to change their mind just because one candidate is ahead of the other; it would just be telling people what they want to hear.

So, as much as I'd like to believe that Kerry's way ahead now, I know that in reality it's still very close, and Bush has a slight lead. I was worried last week though - Bush really pulled ahead.