PDA

View Full Version : Electoral Vote Projections


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30

bronconick
10-29-2004, 03:52 PM
http://www.techcentralstation.com/101404A.html

Kind of an interesting article. Mildly insane, but interesting.
It'd be the only way to get a competent man elected President.

Tie Goes to the...
By Matt Glassman Published 10/14/2004
E-Mail Bookmark Print Save
TCS

Interested in becoming president this year? If so, hope for an electoral college tie. With an unlikely, but plausible, perfect tie -- 269 electoral votes for both George W. Bush and John Kerry -- anyone meeting the Constitutional qualifications for president could end up president. Here's how.

Most people know the electoral college, and not popular vote, decides presidential elections. Many people also know that if no one gets a majority of electoral college votes the Constitution directs the House of Representatives to choose the President. This has happened twice (not counting 1876, a technically different situation) -- in the strange tie of 1800 and the 4-way election of 1824. The contemporary prospects for a House election are slim. Only an electoral tie -- or a third party winning electors -- could produce it. However, a tie is plausible this year: if all states vote the same as 2000 except New Hampshire and Nevada, the electoral vote would be 269 to 269.



An electoral college tie would produce overwhelming media attention on the possibility of "faithless electors", who disregard the vote return in his/her state and pick whichever candidate he/she wishes. In 2000, such a move by three electors would have produced a Gore victory. Earlier this month, a Republican elector, Richie Rob, made rumblings that he might not elect Bush if the President wins West Virginia.



A more intriguing, and potentially more consequential, possibility is an elector "shedding" a vote to a 3rd candidate. In an election thrown to the House, the 12th amendment specifies to choose from the top three electoral vote recipients. In a tie, only Bush and Kerry will have electoral votes, Unless some elector decides to shed his vote, making the outcome 269-268-1. Why would an elector do this?



It's simple. Shedding a vote would still send the election to the House. Currently, the Republicans would handily win a vote between Bush and Kerry. Democratic electors thus have an incentive to get a third candidate on the House ballot -- particularly a centrist who could draw moderate Republicans into a coalition with the House Democrats to defeat Bush. To succeed, it would have to be a prominent moderate Republican, and it would have to be someone willing to attempt a revolt in the Republican party. It would almost have to be John McCain.



While McCain might reject this and throw his support behind Bush, he might seize the opportunity, much like Aaron Burr did in 1800. It would be his chance to reshape the GOP. He has never personally liked Bush. And lest we forget, it could make him president. Certainly there are House GOP members who would prefer a moderate Republican to Bush.



Bush Republicans would obviously try to prevent such a revolt. However, few GOP defectors would be needed. The 12th amendment also specifies that the House vote is by state delegations, not simple majority. To win, you must get the vote of 26 state delegations. Along strict partisan lines, there are 30 GOP delegations, 16 Democratic delegations (including Vermont's independent but left leaning Bernie Sanders), and 4 deadlocked delegations.



Imagine a three-way House choice between Bush, Kerry, and McCain. McCain could prevent Bush from gaining the required 26 states by deadlocking 5 states. Assuming full Democratic support for McCain, defection of less than a dozen key GOP members could deny Bush victory. After a first ballot impasse, it's anybody's game, but McCain, as the moderate of the three, would be a favorite to win a politically brokered deal.



But Republicans might act even earlier. Think back to the original "shedding" of an elector to McCain. Although a tie vote would be known in early November, the electors do not meet until December, giving them time to consider their options. The obvious Republican counter-attack would be to encourage multiple Republican electors to shed votes. Multiple electors shed toward either a left-winger (say, Howard Dean) or a right-winger (say, Tom DeLay), could keep a moderate, agreeable third candidate such as McCain out of the contest, making the House vote between Bush, Kerry, and a radical. The House GOP would hold together, and Bush would win handily.



But why would the Democratic electors allow this? They could plan to shed more electors towards McCain. A race to the bottom could then ensue, such that any radical combination of electoral votes, even scenarios where Bush or Kerry get few or no votes, could occur. Depending on what degree electors are aware of the possibilities and to what degree they coordinate their actions, almost any three candidate could end up in the House.



While farfetched, the idea of the perfect electoral tie and electoral shedding opens the frightening possibility of an American election in true disarray -- one in which anyone, announced candidate or not, could end up President. Even you.

French Rage
10-29-2004, 06:02 PM
Awesome. I'm contacting my local elector and telling him to shed a vote to me.

Kepler
10-30-2004, 04:10 PM
With 3 days to go, very little change. BC has FL going to Kerry and OH going to Bush -- several other sites still have them the other way around.

RCP battleground results here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

Buff
10-30-2004, 09:19 PM
The Boston Red Sox won so maybe this won't matter anymore either.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=1910795


Remember Scooby, the Boston Red Sox and the Saint Louis Cardinals have each won the World Series twice before in election years. A Democrat won all four times. It didn't really matter who won the series this year (except for all of us rooting for the Sox to break that curse).

K7776S2001
10-30-2004, 09:26 PM
I prefer the letter "D."

>COLORADO Zogby: 50-46 Kerry

Hard to believe. It would be funny if the initiative cut *against* the Dems, though.


.[/QUOTE]

Colorado

RCP Average | 10/18-10/30 - - 50.8 44.3 - Bush +6.5
Zogby | 10/27-10/30 600 LV 4.1 50 45 - Bush +5
Rocky Mtn News | 10/25-27 500 LV 4.3 51 42 - Bush +9
Survey USA | 10/18-10/20 596 LV 4.1 52 45 - Bush +7
Rasmussen | 10/18 500 LV 4.5 50 45 - Bush +5

These numbers prove that Zogby was smoking dope with his polling on Colorado the other day. He even refutes himself today. ;)

Kepler
10-30-2004, 11:34 PM
The last three polls all have the election dead even or tightening:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Democracy Corps, which I don't trust, has Kerry up 48-47 among Likely.
ARG has Kerry up 49-48 among Likely and 49-48 among Registered.
Fox has Bush up 47-45 among Likely and a 46-46 tie among Registered.

The "Incumbent Rule" combined with increases in Registration which are not reflected in the "Likely" figures suggest we take Bush's polling among Registered as an indication of his greatest upper bound. From those polls, those average to 47. If you take his average among all the marks above, it sits at 47.2. He needs to improve that by at least 1 point to win the popular vote.

RCP's summary of state races:

FL: Bush +4 | OH: Bush +2 | PA: Kerry +2 | WI: Kerry +2 | MN: Bush +1
IA: Bush + 5 | MI: Kerry +2 | NH: Kerry +1 | NM: Bush + 4 | NV: Bush +6
CO: Bush +7 | MO: Bush +5 | AR: Bush +8 | WV: Bush +8 | OR: Kerry +6

By that count, Kerry would need an across-the-board +3% influx of votes to win (that would transfer OH and MN to him, for 272-266).

Red Cloud
10-31-2004, 01:42 PM
Poll Bonanza. Brought to you by the letter F.

ARKANSAS
Mason-Dixon: 51-43 Bush

COLORADO
Zogby: 50-45 Bush
Mason-Dixon: 50-43 Bush

FLORIDA
Zogby: 49-47 Kerry
Mason-Dixon: 49-45 Bush

IOWA
Zogby: 47-46 Kerry
Mason-Dixon: 49-44 Bush
Des Moines Register: 48-45 Kerry (1% Nader)

MICHIGAN
Zogby: 48-47 Kerry
Mason-Dixon: 47-45 Kerry

MINNESOTA
Zogby: 49-46 Kerry
Mason-Dixon: 48-47 Bush
Minneapolis Star-Tribune: 49-41 Kerry

MISSOURI
Mason-Dixon: 49-44 Bush

NEVADA
Zogby: 50-46 Bush
Mason-Dixon: 50-44 Bush

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mason-Dixon: 47-46 Kerry

NEW MEXICO
Zogby: 52-43 Bush
Mason-Dixon: 49-45 Bush

OHIO
Zogby: 49-44 Bush
Mason-Dixon: 48-46 Bush

OREGON
Mason-Dixon: 50-44 Kerry

PENNSYLVANIA
Zogby: 49-46 Kerry
Mason-Dixon: 48-46 Bush

VIRGINIA
Richmond Times-Dispatch: 49-40 Bush

WEST VIRGINIA
Mason-Dixon: 51-43 Bush

WISCONSIN
Zogby: 52-44 Kerry
Mason-Dixon: 48-46 Kerry

Old Blood and Guts
10-31-2004, 02:08 PM
[QUOTE=Kepler]
The "Incumbent Rule" combined with increases in Registration which are not reflected in the "Likely" figures suggest we take Bush's polling among Registered as an indication of his greatest upper bound. From those polls, those average to 47. If you take his average among all the marks above, it sits at 47.2. He needs to improve that by at least 1 point to win the popular vote.
[QUOTE]

Don't pollsters simply ask the question "how likely are you to vote this election" when figuring out whether or not someone falls into the "likely voter" category? If you read the fine pring of some of those polls, you'll find out that this is how they break registered voters into likely voters. Thus, I don't think it matters at all whether or not you registered for the first time this year.

The polls over the last couple of days seem to confirm what I have always believed, that Bush is going to take Ohio. I also believe that we'll know before midnight on election night that Bush has taken Ohio. Florida is much more close. Zogby has Kerry up, but many other polls have Bush up, and Bush leads in the state poll average according to Real Clear Politics. In my opinion, we are in the same situation as we were in 2000, namely Florida will decide the national election.

Red Cloud
10-31-2004, 04:16 PM
A bizarre AP story.

Dead Votes likely to Count (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_el_ge/dead_voters)

French Rage
10-31-2004, 05:42 PM
A bizarre AP story.

Dead Votes likely to Count (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_el_ge/dead_voters)

Hmmm, interesting case. I mean, she voted while alive and was elifible, it's not like there's a specific rule layed out that you have to be alive on election day. :confused:

bronconick
10-31-2004, 05:45 PM
Hmmm, interesting case. I mean, she voted while alive and was elifible, it's not like there's a specific rule layed out that you have to be alive on election day. :confused:

It sounds more like it's an iffy case to get the vote invalidated in the first place, and the process to do so is such a pain in the *** it's easier just to count them.

ihw30
10-31-2004, 05:45 PM
Hmmm, interesting case. I mean, she voted while alive and was elifible, it's not like there's a specific rule layed out that you have to be alive on election day. :confused:
I have no idea what they should do on this. People are dead, so why should their vote count, but at the same time they did vote before they died. I don't know. I could see either side of this one.

French Rage
10-31-2004, 06:02 PM
I have no idea what they should do on this. People are dead, so why should their vote count, but at the same time they did vote before they died. I don't know. I could see either side of this one.

Yeah, either way it's something they should decide before the next election so they dont have it up in the air like this.

Bob Gray
10-31-2004, 06:34 PM
I saw the headline and figured at first it was just an article about the old days in Chicago under Mayor Daley! :)

Wouldn't it be something if the votes of dead people were the difference in the election? It's hard to imagine all the legal gymnastics that would entail in the courts!

Todd
10-31-2004, 06:55 PM
A bizarre AP story.

Dead Votes likely to Count (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_el_ge/dead_voters)They always have in Chicago...

On a serious note, why shouldn't they? The rules say that you can vote in a certain way. They did. Why would what happens to them afterwards have any affect on the validity of their votes?

What if you get hit by a car leaving your polling place? Does that invalidate your vote? It shoudn't, IMHO.

What if one candidate wins a narrow victory (say 1,000 votes) in their home state and then holds a rally for everyone who voted for them in their home district... then terrorists blow up the building, killing more than 1500 supporters? Does the other candidate now win by more than 500? Seems silly doesn't it?

I look at it this way: Anyone who makes one of their last conscious acts be voting ought to have their ballot counted... hell, count it twice.

I saw another story like this earlier in the week. The guy didn't want to pick either pres candidate, but asked his son to check off his local congressman. Then he fell asleep and died shortly thereafter. The guy's literal last conscious act was to make sure his ballot was filled out. (It was signed before he gave the pen to this son to check off the rest as he read the ballot to him, then the old man passed away.)

Red Cloud
10-31-2004, 09:27 PM
On a serious note, why shouldn't they? The rules say that you can vote in a certain way. They did. Why would what happens to them afterwards have any affect on the validity of their votes?
Well, that's certainly true. In fact, I agree.

The question here is that absentee and early voting, in theory, don't become actual votes until November 2. If a person dies before November 2, then, in theory, they would not be eligible to vote in that election - you have to be living in order to vote. A technicality, I think.

Look at it this way. A man sends in an absentee ballot, and then kills his wife the next day. Should his vote count? On Election Day, he's in jail awaiting trial on a felony charge. By law, it ought not count.

Kepler
10-31-2004, 09:32 PM
A man sends in an absentee ballot, and then kills his wife the next day. Should his vote count? On Election Day, he's in jail awaiting trial on a felony charge. By law, it ought not count.
I think because he can't change his vote after he has voted early, then he has already voted -- only the counting of the pends, not the vote itself. The right is to vote -- therefore, it should count.

Red Cloud
10-31-2004, 09:44 PM
I think because he can't change his vote after he has voted early, then he has already voted -- only the counting of the pends, not the vote itself. The right is to vote -- therefore, it should count.
But the point is that on the day that his vote is supposed to count, he's not eligible to vote. In theory, that is supposed lead to his vote being thrown out.

However, simply looking at an absentee ballot, you can't tell if that person is now dead or sitting on death row or anything like that. In order to have them thrown out, you'd have to do research into pretty much every single ballot, or rely on people tipping off election workers that the individual is deceased or incarcerated. Expensive.

Kepler
10-31-2004, 10:10 PM
But the point is that on the day that his vote is supposed to count, he's not eligible to vote. In theory, that is supposed lead to his vote being thrown out.
But *my* point is that he isn't voting on the day of the count. He has already voted, validly, by the state's definition.

GOPHER FREAK
10-31-2004, 10:19 PM
But *my* point is that he isn't voting on the day of the count. He has already voted, validly, by the state's definition.

Probably one of the few thing besides the Mets I'll ever agree with Kepler on.
All I want is this election to be decided outside the courts.