Im wondering if McCain broke the record amount of votes too.

 

Do you mean this map of California?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/res.../#val=CAP00map

Of the 58 counties in California, Obama carried 30. That's 51.7%. So actually most of the state is blue. This equates to 61% of that state's population. A staggering 6,219,123 cast votes for Obama and only 3,777,314 cast votes for McCain. A difference of 2,441,809 votes.

 

Here's a map bluejay was referring to:

Pretty sickening if you ask me that big cities can win these elections for entire states. I HATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

 

So 2,000 people living in a high rise should count the same as lettuce farmer with 17,000 acres?

I agree though, just go with the popular vote but, Obama did win that too.

 

I'm all for just using the popular vote. And yes, Obama did win the popular vote, but at least that appears closer than the "landslide" of electoral votes. All the electoral college means in this day and age is that you can carry the big (in electoral vote terms) states and cherrypick some of the smaller ones. This country is NOT as near "unification" as all of the media is trying to tell us we are. The popular vote shows that.

 

I didn't hear the republicans touting the popular vote in 2000.
You have to play the game by the rules as they are.
Now that Obama has picked up NC it is officially a landslide.
You have to get on the Obama train or get runt over.
The train leaves the station in ten and half weeks.

tickets, tickets please...

 

Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In my mind, he should have been President based on that, end of story. My point is (always has been) that the Electoral College as a viable means of selecting our President is outdated.

 

I agree with you BigTRQ, I was just jerking your chain.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. The electoral college gives an unfair advantage to the lesser populated states like Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc...

In California, for instance, 54 electoral votes divided by the state's voting population of about 10,000,000 yields one electoral vote for every 185,185 voters.

In Wyoming on the other hand, 3 electoral votes divided by the state's voting population of about 241,135 yields one electoral vote for every 80,378 voters.

BTW the number of electoral votes is also the same as the number of US Representatives in congress from each state. So these states that have smaller populations actually deserve less representation in congress. Or the states with larger populations actually deserve more representation.

 

Fixed that for ya. :P

These maps I found from 2004 are astounding. Each map represents only data from the last 6 weeks prior to election day. On the left, each handprint represents where a POTUS or VPOTUS nominee visited. On the right, each dollar sign represents where over $1 million was spent on advertising. Yeah, the candidates sure did care about the "whole" country.
(From Wiki about Electoral College)

 

The candidates should be required to visit every community with more than 500 residents. Of course this would mean doubling or possibly tripling the length of their campaigns. More commercials, more phone calls, more disruption. But thats ok. Look on the bright side, this would create a cottage industry that would permanently employ tens of thousands to deliver take-out, make copies, pass out bumper stickers, etc . The influx of money in these communities would be enormous. Nice stimulation to the economy. Somebody better tell Palin not to donate that wardrobe just yet, she's gonna need it next week when she kicks off her 2012 bid for the RNC nomination.