Interesting election numbers
Thread Starter
|
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Interesting election numbers
I was playing around with the Electoral College numbers and calculated the following:
A candidate could get 74% of the popular vote and win a landslide in 39 of the 50 states and lose the election.
The magic number for winning the Presidency is 270.
Eleven states have enough electoral votes to equal 270.
(CA,NY,TX,FL,PA,IL,OH,MI,NJ,NC,GA)
Using the 2000 returns there were a total of 55,532,465 Republican and Democractic votes in those eleven states.
(105,405,100 total votes in all states)
(55,532,465 - 11) = 55,532,454 / 2 = 27,766,227
Candidate 'A' gets 27,766,227 + 11 more (1 to win each state)
Candidate 'B gets 27,766,227 + 49,872,635(the rest of the US)
So Candidate 'B' gets 74% of the vote and wins 39 states
and Candidate 'A' gest 26% of the vote and wins 11 states and wins the election.
That's pretty funny.
A candidate could get 74% of the popular vote and win a landslide in 39 of the 50 states and lose the election.
The magic number for winning the Presidency is 270.
Eleven states have enough electoral votes to equal 270.
(CA,NY,TX,FL,PA,IL,OH,MI,NJ,NC,GA)
Using the 2000 returns there were a total of 55,532,465 Republican and Democractic votes in those eleven states.
(105,405,100 total votes in all states)
(55,532,465 - 11) = 55,532,454 / 2 = 27,766,227
Candidate 'A' gets 27,766,227 + 11 more (1 to win each state)
Candidate 'B gets 27,766,227 + 49,872,635(the rest of the US)
So Candidate 'B' gets 74% of the vote and wins 39 states
and Candidate 'A' gest 26% of the vote and wins 11 states and wins the election.
That's pretty funny.
Thread Starter
|
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Let's make it even worse.
In 39 states patriotism is high, voter turn out is high and every last gosh durn one of them votes for Candidate 'B'.
In the 11 states listed above, apathy is epidemic. On election day, only one voter bothers to even show up at the polls in those states and all 11 of them pull the lever for Candidate 'A'.
Candidate 'B got 49,872,635 votes or 99.999997 % of the vote.
Candidate 'A' got 11 votes or 00.000003 % of the vote and...
Candidate 'A' is President!
In 39 states patriotism is high, voter turn out is high and every last gosh durn one of them votes for Candidate 'B'.
In the 11 states listed above, apathy is epidemic. On election day, only one voter bothers to even show up at the polls in those states and all 11 of them pull the lever for Candidate 'A'.
Candidate 'B got 49,872,635 votes or 99.999997 % of the vote.
Candidate 'A' got 11 votes or 00.000003 % of the vote and...
Candidate 'A' is President!
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Seems fair to me.
Unless one of the 11 voters got confused by the ballot - then all bets are off.
BTW, The founding fathers ROCK.
If you want to change the system via constitutional ammendment, there are provisions for doing so. Any attempts to change the rules via judicial or legislative fiat should be squashed.
Unless one of the 11 voters got confused by the ballot - then all bets are off.
BTW, The founding fathers ROCK.
If you want to change the system via constitutional ammendment, there are provisions for doing so. Any attempts to change the rules via judicial or legislative fiat should be squashed.
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Alberta, Canada
This isn't meant as a flame, but....I just don't get the US electoral system. Based upon the above, your vote realistically only counts depending upon which State you live in??? Our system up here is much different and certainly has its own problems due to uneven population distribution throughout the Country.
My question would be...what is the incentive for the residents in the 39 states to vote? (I'm sure there must be logic to this, I just don't see it)
My question would be...what is the incentive for the residents in the 39 states to vote? (I'm sure there must be logic to this, I just don't see it)
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Actually, the population in the 'small' 39 states has a greater representation per person in the electoral college than the 'big' 11 states.
For example, the lowest population state (Wyoming, I think) has 3 electoral college votes based on 2 Senators and 1 Rep.
A state with 20 times the population of Wyoming would have 22 Electoral College Votes (2 Senators + 20 reps). 22/3 = 7.33, so each Wyoming resident has 7.33 times the electoral college clout of the state that is 20 times bigger in population.
The system is actually is a pretty good compromise, IMO. There are reasons why the founding fathers did not want a direct popular vote. A direct popular vote would be a huge advantage to a candidate that appealed to the country's urban areas.
With an internet search, you can find out everything you ever wanted to know about the electoral college.
For example, the lowest population state (Wyoming, I think) has 3 electoral college votes based on 2 Senators and 1 Rep.
A state with 20 times the population of Wyoming would have 22 Electoral College Votes (2 Senators + 20 reps). 22/3 = 7.33, so each Wyoming resident has 7.33 times the electoral college clout of the state that is 20 times bigger in population.
The system is actually is a pretty good compromise, IMO. There are reasons why the founding fathers did not want a direct popular vote. A direct popular vote would be a huge advantage to a candidate that appealed to the country's urban areas.
With an internet search, you can find out everything you ever wanted to know about the electoral college.
Last edited by dirt bike dave; May 4, 2004 at 06:40 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: Beaverton,MI
And proof of this is that in 2000 Bush carried almost every county in Michigan except the greater Detroit area and Algore won Michigan by Detroits and out lying area vote.
Kind of feel like my vote doesnt count when burbs dictate elections, but hey I still vote.
Sled...
Kind of feel like my vote doesnt count when burbs dictate elections, but hey I still vote.
Sled...
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Frank S
The electoral college was meant to keep the large cities from deciding elections. Otherwise, candidates would never campaign in the smaller towns, states.
The electoral college was meant to keep the large cities from deciding elections. Otherwise, candidates would never campaign in the smaller towns, states.
That is the reason we must ALWAYS have an Electoral College otherwise the small states will never have a word about how bad they get screwed by liberals and taxes…
Kerry has nothing to worry about since he will not win the Electoral College nor will he get any where close to half the popular vote.
In polls people pick him because they don’t like President Bush. It’s not to common to find many who pick Kerry in polls actual do so because they like him or his stand on everything which is he agrees with everything President Bush does and he disagrees with everything President Bush believes in.
In other words it all depends on the time of day where Kerry actually stands on an issue. He is still confused if he even owns a SUV or not…
Anyway people who DON’T like a candidate but pick him in a poll generally do not go out and vote…
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,316
Likes: 1
Originally posted by garry42
This isn't meant as a flame, but....I just don't get the US electoral system. Based upon the above, your vote realistically only counts depending upon which State you live in??? Our system up here is much different and certainly has its own problems due to uneven population distribution throughout the Country.
My question would be...what is the incentive for the residents in the 39 states to vote? (I'm sure there must be logic to this, I just don't see it)
This isn't meant as a flame, but....I just don't get the US electoral system. Based upon the above, your vote realistically only counts depending upon which State you live in??? Our system up here is much different and certainly has its own problems due to uneven population distribution throughout the Country.
My question would be...what is the incentive for the residents in the 39 states to vote? (I'm sure there must be logic to this, I just don't see it)
A local area votes for a representative. The party with the most reps wins the leadership.
Just like Canada.
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Alberta, Canada
Thanks for the posts everyone. You're right J150.....Once I read the posts and did a bit of research, it really isn't as different from the Canadian system as I thought it was.
I've always meant to try and figure the US system out......now I have! Thanks a bunch!!
I've always meant to try and figure the US system out......now I have! Thanks a bunch!!
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 12,632
Likes: 1
From: Stinkin Joisey
Re: Interesting election numbers
Originally posted by Raoul
I was playing around with the Electoral College numbers and calculated the following:
A candidate could get 74% of the popular vote and win a landslide in 39 of the 50 states and lose the election.
The magic number for winning the Presidency is 270.
Eleven states have enough electoral votes to equal 270.
(CA,NY,TX,FL,PA,IL,OH,MI,NJ,NC,GA)
Using the 2000 returns there were a total of 55,532,465 Republican and Democractic votes in those eleven states.
(105,405,100 total votes in all states)
(55,532,465 - 11) = 55,532,454 / 2 = 27,766,227
Candidate 'A' gets 27,766,227 + 11 more (1 to win each state)
Candidate 'B gets 27,766,227 + 49,872,635(the rest of the US)
So Candidate 'B' gets 74% of the vote and wins 39 states
and Candidate 'A' gest 26% of the vote and wins 11 states and wins the election.
That's pretty funny.
I was playing around with the Electoral College numbers and calculated the following:
A candidate could get 74% of the popular vote and win a landslide in 39 of the 50 states and lose the election.
The magic number for winning the Presidency is 270.
Eleven states have enough electoral votes to equal 270.
(CA,NY,TX,FL,PA,IL,OH,MI,NJ,NC,GA)
Using the 2000 returns there were a total of 55,532,465 Republican and Democractic votes in those eleven states.
(105,405,100 total votes in all states)
(55,532,465 - 11) = 55,532,454 / 2 = 27,766,227
Candidate 'A' gets 27,766,227 + 11 more (1 to win each state)
Candidate 'B gets 27,766,227 + 49,872,635(the rest of the US)
So Candidate 'B' gets 74% of the vote and wins 39 states
and Candidate 'A' gest 26% of the vote and wins 11 states and wins the election.
That's pretty funny.
Thread Starter
|
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Re: Re: Interesting election numbers
Originally posted by Fast Gator
must have been a slow day at work!!!!!
must have been a slow day at work!!!!!
It took me six days.
I was able to do it in that amount of time only because I loaded my briefcase with the documentation and took it home with me most nights.
If I had a calculator I could have done it in three days.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
From: 49 45' 40.76"N 119 10' 12.84"W Sol III ᐰ
Re: Re: Re: Interesting election numbers
Originally posted by Raoul
You're kidding right?
It took me six days.
I was able to do it in that amount of time only because I loaded my briefcase with the documentation and took it home with me most nights.
If I had a calculator I could have done it in three days.
You're kidding right?
It took me six days.
I was able to do it in that amount of time only because I loaded my briefcase with the documentation and took it home with me most nights.
If I had a calculator I could have done it in three days.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
Likes: 2
From: New York, NY
It's good to know that you can always count on Frank and XLT to provide a balanced and well thought out opinion on any subject
Just about everyone agrees that voter apathy is a problem in this country. We also know why it is a problem but no one wants to fix it.
The fact is that there is no reason for me to vote in the presidential election in NY because we all know how the state is going to vote as a whole.
The founding fathers also could not have cared less about rural versus urban voting power. We went with the electoral college for two reasons. The first was because at the time the technology did not exist to ensure accurate and complete vote counts and the elctoral college was a compromise. The second reason was that the founding fathers did not entirely trust the voting public.
Frank and XLT (among others) seem to be happy that the majority does not get to make the decisions in this country and I can not begin to understand why. The president represents everyone in the country. Why then don't those people get to decide who becomes president?
A country run by the minority is an oligarchy and not a democracy.
XLT: Are you happy now that we get to spend another 25 billion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan on top of the 87 billion we have already spent? Are you prepared to spend even more immediately after the election and next year?
-Don
Just about everyone agrees that voter apathy is a problem in this country. We also know why it is a problem but no one wants to fix it.
The fact is that there is no reason for me to vote in the presidential election in NY because we all know how the state is going to vote as a whole.
The founding fathers also could not have cared less about rural versus urban voting power. We went with the electoral college for two reasons. The first was because at the time the technology did not exist to ensure accurate and complete vote counts and the elctoral college was a compromise. The second reason was that the founding fathers did not entirely trust the voting public.
Frank and XLT (among others) seem to be happy that the majority does not get to make the decisions in this country and I can not begin to understand why. The president represents everyone in the country. Why then don't those people get to decide who becomes president?
A country run by the minority is an oligarchy and not a democracy.
XLT: Are you happy now that we get to spend another 25 billion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan on top of the 87 billion we have already spent? Are you prepared to spend even more immediately after the election and next year?
-Don