In our last post, the Monkey and I described the fundamentals and history behind the Electoral College and offered the idea that the College must be scrapped if we are to move into an era of more free and more fair elections in the 21-Century.

it is clear that electing our President soley by means of a popular vote would not only fairly gauge the intentions of our entire nation of voters, but it would also remove any suspicions of legitmacy when the odd circumstance occurs in which the outcome of the popular vote is different than the electoral college result, as it happened most recently in George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000.

More Expansive Campaigns

Most proponents of the Electoral College maintain that this system is still adequate and legitimate because it does a better job of lending authority to smaller states by making their votes count more and maintaining fairness by precluding large urban areas from determining the outcome of the election by making their votes count less. The Monkey and I would argue, however, that what the current system actually does is in essence make the election “about” a handful of swing states, rather than about the concerns and issues facing the entire nation.

The 2004 election is a perfect example of this. Each candidate visited Ohio over 20 times in final month of the campaign. More than anything, the 2004 election was “about” Ohio, and therefore the issues the candidates spoke about were skewed towards issues mainly facing Ohioans: unemployment, lost manufacturing jobs, and “values” issues like Gay Marriage that made its way onto the ballot in Ohio. A national popular vote would force the candidates to make their campaigns more broad and expansive, catering more to the concerns of the entire nation, rather than to the idiosyncracies of one contained geographical area.

In 2008 the number of swing states or states in play has expanded beyond Ohio to include Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Indiana, Missouri, and perhaps a few more. So in many ways, this seismic shift in the traditional red state/blue state electoral map has forced the candidates to become more inclusive in their rhetoric and policies in order to capture the votes of a broader based spectrum of voters, but this is more due to Candidate Obama’s broad appeal than any advantages or inherent qualities of the current Electoral College voting system. No Republican would have predicted in late ‘07 that North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado would be in play for Democrats.

51 Simultaneous Elections a Recipe for Chaos

Perhaps more significant than the fact that we currently don’t use a national popular vote to determine our President in this country, is the reality that on Election Day we are running 51 state elections executed by hundreds or even thousands of local Election Boards, each run in a different way under different rules with different standards, different ballots, and different means of collecting votes. It is almost as if our current election system is asking for chaos, disorder, and uncertainty on Election Day. It should be recognized as a national shame that for the past two election cycles, in 2004 and 2000, that some level of controversy has stained the outcome of the election and that a winner was unable to be determined on Election Day itself. Instead, this type of uncertainly has come to be expected. The sad reality is that in the midst of chaos and lack of uniformity lies the opportunity for shenanigans. Without a uniform ballot, a uniform voting machine, and uniform rules stipulating how elections should be run, it is virtually impossible to conduct a clean, transparent, and fair election.

Election Day a Federally-Mandated Holiday?

Instead of celebrating one of our greatest freedoms and the most visible aspect of living in a democracy, for many Americans, Election Day is a day of hassle, wasted time, and frustration. For many living in urban areas, long lines, a lack of machines, misinformation, and general chaos makes voting a rather daunting task. Combine that with the pressure that many feel to go to their jobs instead of vote, or the fact that many employers intimidate their workers to not shirk their work duties in order to vote, turnout is often a problem because our country does not support workers on Election Day. When I was filming my documentary Swing State Ohio, I ran into several voters on Election Day who did not want to be interviewed for our film for fear that their employers might see them voting instead working their jobs.

Election Day should be a federal holiday like Labor Day or Memorial Day, with the vast majority of our workforce having the day off to celebrate their freedom and their precious privilege to vote. Many schools are already closed on this day as they are often used as polling sites. Imagine what a different day Election Day would be if American workers all across the country threw Election parties, held colder-weather barbecues, and purposely celebrated the most fundamental aspect of living in a democracy? There would certainly be a loss in productivity, but the gains in voter confidence, enthusiasm, and turnout would be priceless. Soft intimidation to not vote would also be a thing of the past, and so would ridiculous lines or feelings of frustration about rushing to get back to work, or even worse, giving up at the polls when the wait is too much to tolerate in light of the pressure of having to answer to an employer (which was the case for one of the gentlemen we spoke to while filming our documentary).

Take Money Out of the Equation: Federally Mandated Airtime for Candidates

When thinking about Presidential campaigns, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: should capitalism extend to politics? Much has been made this year of Barack Obama’s renegging of his promise to accept federal election funds, in contrast to his opponent, Sarah Palin’s Running Mate, who has stuck to his word in order to collect some $80 million in federal funds for his campaign. While this may be a legitimate criticism of Obama, it is odd that a Republican is choosing to take advantage of public funds while the Democrat is engaging in economic realities of the free market in order to fund his campaign, by some estimates to the tune of half a billion dollars when all is said and done.

It is absolutely outrageous that our political system allows this kind of money to be spent on what is in essence an extended job interview. While one could argue that Obama enjoys such a huge campaign coffer due to the enormous support he has cultivated from millions of Americans and is merely a reflection of the will of the American people, it is still sad that at the end of the day, money fuels politics just like everything else in our society. The consequence of this is that prominence of money promulgates an unfair two-party system which inaccurately relegates to the choice of President into two black or white categories (no pun intended), instead of reflecting a wider spectrum of perspectives.

A solution: take most of the money out of the equation. The vast majority of money spent on Presidential campaigns ends up on our televisions. If instead of the current system we had a system in which the Federal Government mandates a certain quantity of airtime on federal airwaves (upon which our major networks broadcast) for each candidate, coupled with a requirement for party candidates to accept Federal election funds as well as a stricter restrictions on how that money can be spent, we would have a campaign mostly devoid of misleading, negative advertising, as well as an opportunity for third-party candidates to also have a voice.

For example, if a candidate is nominated by a political party and received a reasonable number of votes or signatures confirming their candidacy, they would be entered into the new Federal Election System, (mandated by a Constitutional Amendment, to be discussed in a moment). Currently, the “major party” candidate can receive public financing for their campaigns based on guidelines outlined here. A read-through of the guidelines will tell you that this system is still not without the influence of private funds and is still heavily skewed towards major party candidates. Interestingly, back in 1907, President Theodore Rooselvelt suggested that an entirely public system be put into place, with all private funds to be forbidden. Why is not this notion common sense? Why are not more Americans outraged that Campaigns are to be sold and bought by the highest bidder, whose concerns will later be addressed and recompensed by the elected candidate?

My proposal for a new Federal Election System would grant all eligible candidates blocks of longer-form television advertising, which lends itself to greater veracity and reduced communication through sound-bites, elevating the discussion to actual themes and issues that voters care about, rather than personal attacks, wedge issues, and red-herrings. An example would be that during a certain week of programming, each candidate would receive 10 minutes of programming from 7:50pm to 8:00pm. Monday would be the Democrat, Tuesday the Republican, Wednesday the Green Party, Thursday the Independent, etc. This would level the playing field and make the campaign a disussion of ideas.

In addition to say, a dozen or so blocks of programming for each eligible candidate, the Presidential Debates would be the other national forum for candidates to make their case. Obviously the debates would include more than just the two parties, and they would be true debates with ample opportunities for each candidate to directly question and respond to one another.

A side note: most often the major rationale for excluding third party candidates is because they lack broad support, only represent fringe issues, or worse yet, don’t stand a chance of winning. We would argue that their absence from the national stage is the reason why they don’t stand a chance of winning, in addition to the general lack of awareness on the part of the electorate to their existence at all. Our society is so skewed towards just two parties thanks to endless marketing, lobbying, and propaganda on behalf of what amounts to two sides of the same coin, that voters are often left with a false choice or a battle between the lesser of two evils. Our democracy should be able to withstand the entrance of more voices, more perspectives, and more choices. This will only serve to enrich and enliven our political health.

The public funds disbursed by the Federal Government would be a much smaller amount and would be used for the candidates to travel around the country and reach individual voters with their messages. Under this proposed system, the only allowable use of private funds would be for Parties to fund their conventions, but the conventions of all eligible parties would receive equal broadcast airtime.

Instant Runoff Voting

Another major problem with our election system involves the inherent weaknesses of “plurality voting,” in which in our system a candidate who doesn’t even receive the majority of votes can win the Presidential election (as was the case with Bill Clinton and obviously George W. Bush, to name two). Some local governments employ runoff electoins in which candidates who received the least number of votes are eliminated from the ballot and a whole new election is held to determine a winner. This type of system is more fair in that it ensures that the winner will in fact receive a majority of votes, but it is problematic because it is costly to conduct and often turnout is low because voters have to return to the polls on a separate day to finish the election.

A preferrable and more practical system is called “Instant Runoff Voting,” in which voters rank-order their candidates on a single ballot. This is a more accurate gauge of voter preference, eliminates the “spoiler effect,” an instantly ensures that the winner will receive a majority of votes. Here’s an animation that explains it better than I can:

A Constitutional Amendment

While the Constitution addresses voting in terms of not infringing the vote in relation to a voter’s gender or race, there is no specific right to vote guaranteed in the Constitution, nor is there any Federal law stipulating specifically how elections should be run, as this function is left to the states to legislate and execute. We propose that Congress adopt a Constitutional Amendment stipulating the following functions and features of the vote for the office of the Presidency:

• Voting is a right, not to be implicitly or explicitly infringed by employment obligations.
• The Presidential Election is federal election. Citizens vote directly for the Office of the Presidency by means of a national popular vote, determined by a uniform paper Instant Runoff Ballot.
• Election Day is federal holiday.
• Eligible Presidential Candidates must use public financing. Use of any private funds is prohibited, except to fund party Conventions.
• All eligible Presidential Candidates receive equal broadcast airtime, in the form of long-form advertising and Presidential Debates.

A Tall Order: First Task is to Believe in the Possibility of Change

We are not suggesting small, incremental changes in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns and elections. Instead, we are suggesting both a paradigm in shift in the way we view these important functions and features of democracy, as well as the granting of new voting rights for all Americans. Some might argue that this is too much to ask, that the problem will never be fixed, or isn’t worth the energy as the system is already completely corrupt. It is important to remember that no change occurs without first the belief in that change existing within the mind. As out of reach and crazy this type of reform might seem, we must believe that change can occur before any change will occur. While some might dismiss my proposals as mere fancy, it is important realize that this type of cynicism will only result in more of the same.

Although others may have different ideas as to how to reform our system, it is pretty much commonly accepted that our system is outdated, prone to fraud and abuse, and not an accurate way of fairly and transparently measuring the will of the electorate. It is abundantly clear that the variety of ballots, laws, and systems in place in each individual state creates more opportunity for confusion and frustration instead of a pervasive feeling of empowerment and participation in a system that is often billed the first and greatest democracy in the world but often fails to measure up to that expectation. Without a fair vote, our voice is lost. And by definition, without the people’s voice there is no democracy.

Thought for the Day, 11/2/08:

“The only way ‘yes’ can be manifested is when you do more affirming than denying. The Subconsious Mind always acts — and it acts on the most predominant thought.” – U. S Anderson, “Three Magic Words,” page 36.

For more information on this important issue, please visit:

FairVote.org

National Popular Vote.com

Photo by: Steve Woods.

Every few years there comes a time when many in the United States once again question this country’s antiquated and arcane voting system. Oddly enough, this time of questioning usually coincides with a federal election that is often dubbed, “the most important election of our time.” It is sad that in a country self-described as the greatest democracy in the world that so often, and more and more in recent years, abundant questions abound as to the efficacy, legitmacy, and fairness of our U.S. electoral system, particuarly in the case of Presidential Elections.

The Monkey and I are trying to avert our eyes to the various reports popping up in recent days regarding voter suppression and other woes that clearly stained the 2000 election, and possibly threw the 2004 election in the State of Ohio. On the surface, this looking the other way may seem like denial, but in actuality we are instead attempting to not invoke the “Law of Attraction,” and give even more energy to the idea that the fix is already in on this election, in order to prevent this notion from snowballing into fruition on an energetic level (remember, the Law of Attraction works “both” ways). But it’s getting tougher to ignore, or more accurately, to divert our attention from. Just this morning in fact, CNN.com ran with a headline story on their homepage about 50,000 voters being purged from the rolls in the State of Georgia, a state where polls are indicating a historic upset could very well be in the works.

The silver lining to many of these disturning concerns that Democrats and Progressives share about voter suppression and that Republicans and Conservatives share about “voter fraud” (which is mostly a sham, anyway) is that many of these issues could most likely be remedied with a few fundamental changes to how we run elections in this country.

While simple in theory, these changes will take a lot of energy from citizens and our legislators to put into place. Most importantly, these changes will require a massive shift in consciousness towards simplicity, transparency, and practicality.

A Little History

Most US citizens are aware of the fact that our Presidential election is not a direct election or a popular vote (which often makes me and Monkey wonder why we even collect national polling data, as such information is useless in a practical sense, although it does satisfy curiousity and give cable news networks something to blabber about). Instead, we use a system based on an “Electoral College,” and it goes something like this:

• The Presidential Election is not a national election at all, but a collection of 51 simultaneous state elections (including Washington, DC).
• Citizens in actuality don’t vote for any candidate in at all, but instead cast ballots for “Electors” who in turn cast ballots for the candidate for whom they are pledged to vote. The Constitution allows state legislatrues to each choose their own method for selecting Electors. Oddly enough, they don’t have to vote for the person you voted for, but in practice end up voting for the candidate who receives the most popular votes in their state, except in the case of Maine and Nebraska, in which different Electors are chosen for each Congressional District. Hence, these are the only two states that could possibly “split” their slate of Electors.
• The number of Electors in each state are calculated by taking the number of US Senators in that state (always 2) plus the number of US Representatives. DC gets an equal number of Electors as the least populous state, which currently provides three Electors. (As a side note, Washington DC currently enjoys the highest per capita number of Electors with regards to its total population, essentially lending it disproportionate weight when it comes to throwing Electoral votes towards a candidate).
• Based on a Federalist system, the US Electoral College is really a manifestation of the idea that state governments are mostly independent and that the Federal Government is an institution created to govern the “Federation” of States, not the people. In this way citizens have the power to elect local and state governments as well as the US Congress, who in turn are responsible for electing and holding accountable the Federal Government.

Away from Our Federalist Ways

It is important to understand the current system is rooted in Federalism, which is a concept I would argue that many Americans are not completely familiar with, especially given the huge emphasis that the Mainstream Media places on national and Presidential Politics today. In order to change the Electoral College, there must be a fundamental paradigm shift in the way we view the office of the Presidency. It would require us to remove the lens of Federalism when gazing at the conundrum of fairly electing our Executive leader, a change that in many ways would veer away from the origins of over 200 years of governance. In many respects, this change in perception of the Office has already occurred. Now all that is required is for the laws of the land to catch up with the shift in perceptions and a altering of expectations about how we select our Executive leaders.

The Founding Fathers had amazing foresight and wisdom to be able to shape our government in the way they did in a time period in which this nation was unbelievably different than the country in which we are currently living. Despite academic test scores and recent surveys that indicate a staggering lack of civic knowledge on behalf of our citizens and particularly our young people, voters today are still lightyears more sophisticated than the average citizenry of the late 1700’s, with access to volumous and unlimited information and resources to fuel their opinions on the foreign and domestic policy matters at stake during Presidential elections. While the Founding Fathers displayed a vibrant commitment to creating a government and a society that was unique in its capacity to provide and protect unprecedented expressions of freedoms and safeguards to Democracy, capitalism, and the ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they didn’t entirely trust the average rather uninformed voter and wished to keep the reigns of power within the hands of the informed, privileged, and landed gentry embodied by the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

In other words, in the area of electing Presidents, they were either shortsighted, or were incapable of predicting the impact that the Executive Office would have on the citizens, both symbolically and practically speaking. Quite simply stated, the times have changed. Today, in 2008, citizens see the person who occupies the office of the Presidency as the leader of this nation of people and even more, as the leader of the free world. That changed perception of the office requires a change to the method by which we select the President. In practice, the President no longer presides over a federation of states, but instead over a nation of people. Hence, the President should be primarily accountable to, and elected by, a nation of people, not an arcane and often hidden body of Electors.

A Solution is Right in Front of Us

Thanks to Founding Fathers, the power to make changes to our government lies in our hands. A huge majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote to decide the Presidency, and yet the Electoral College remains, along with a multitude of weaknesses in our system that are on full display in tightly contested elections like in 2000, 2004, and most likely, in 2008 as well.

In my next post, I will explain several methods to update the means by which we elect Presidents, as well as several reforms which would prevent the cloud of illegitimacy that has plagued the last few elections. Until then…

Thought for the Day 10/2/08: You Are What You Think

“We are what we think, we do what we think, we become what we think, and thus it must always be.” — U.S. Andersen, “Three Magic Words,” page 143.

Image courtesy: Sanja Gjenero

On the morning of March 5th 2008, in the wake of Hilary Clinton’s “Comeback Kid Version 2.0″ performance in the Texas and Ohio Presidential Primaries, I saw Joe Scarborough on his “Cup of Joe” show talk about Hillary’s resurgence and the fact that she keeps on winning in traditional “blue states,” while Barack Obama is only winning primaries in traditional “red states.” Scarborough went on further to note that Obama will never be able to win these red states in the General election if he were the Democratic nominee, especially states like Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Colorado, and Iowa, which all went into the win column for Bush in 2004.

He then went on to make the point that since Hillary is winning the primary contests in all of the traditional Democratic or blue states, like New York, California, and Massachusetts, that she is doing the better job of appealing to the Democratic base that makes up the majority of the electorate in these states, and would therefore possibly be a better potential nominee than Obama.

On the surface, I can see why someone might think this, but when you take a moment to think about this idea it becomes ridiculous to think that if Obama were the eventual nominee he would somehow be incapable of winning traditional Democratic states like New York and California.

Voter Turnout Makes the Difference

On the contrary, to me it is apparent that Obama’s string of wins in these former red states, coupled with the magnitude of these wins in terms of overall voter turnout, which greatly favors Democratic candidates versus Republican candidates, indicates that there is a good chance his success in these states will portend Democratic success in these same states during the general election.

In my previous post, A Landslide Victory in 2008? Using Primary Results to Predict a Winner I break down the popular vote results of every contest so far (as of February 19th, 2008) and posit a theory that the 2008 Election will be a landslide victory for the Democratic candidate, especially if that candidate happens to be Barack Obama. I qualify this prediction as it is clear that Obama is attracting a larger number of Independents and moderate Republicans than Mrs. Clinton is attracting, and it safe to assume that not all of these Obama supporters would neccessarily vote Democrat if he is not the nominee in November.

Prediction: 60 More Electoral Votes Go To…

With the popular votes now in for the recent contests on March 4th in Vermont, Rhode Island, Texas, and Ohio, you can see the same trend of huge voter turnout in favor of Democrats continuing. I am shocked that none of the major media outlets are drawing significant attention to this fact during their Primary coverage and post-mortems.

Below, I combine the popular vote totals for Clinton and Obama to talley total Democratic votes and combine the popular vote totals for Huckabee and McCain to determine the total Republican vote:

VERMONT:
Democrat votes: 151,683
Republican votes: 34,161
Electoral Vote Prediction:
Democrat: 3
Republican: 0

RHODE ISLAND:
Democrat votes: 183,865
Republican votes: 23,307
Electoral Vote Prediction:
Democrat: 3
Republican: 0

OHIO:
Democrat votes: 2,186,831
Republican votes: 961,837
Electoral Vote Prediction:
Democrat: 20
Republican: 0

TEXAS:
Democrat votes: 2,812,289
Republican votes: 1,232,376
Electoral Vote Prediction:
Democrat: 34
Republican: 0

The numbers don’t lie. Overwhelming results for Democrats which will lead to overwhelming results in November.

Yes, I am predicting that Texas and Ohio will be won by Democrats in 2008. The only thing that might change that would be determined by who McCain picks as his running mate. Someone like Colin Powell would be very powerful on a Republican ticket and might sway voters in Texas and Ohio, states in which many active duty and retired military personnel live. So I will submit a revised prediction when his running mate is revealed.

Electoral Map Not Set In Stone

Based on the record turnout numbers in just about every contest this primary season in favor of the Democratic candidates versus McCain and the other Republicans, I have to wonder why it is still the prevailing wisdom that what was red will continue to be red and what was blue will continue to be blue.

I am not sure how long we’ve been using the terms “Red State/Blue State” but a look at the electoral maps of previous elections prior to 2000 indicate that what we commonly think of as the electoral map hasn’t always been what it is perceived to be today.

GOP candidate Ronald Reagan, for example, won practically the entire country in 1980, even supposed Democratic strongholds like New York and California (albeit as former Governor, Reagan was pretty popular in California). In 1992, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton won significant southern states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia, as well as western states like Colorado and Nevada, all states that we commonly refer to as Red States in 2008.

The point I’m getting at is that it would be healthy to reject the conventional wisdom that says things must be a certain way simply because a lot of people, particularly those in the media, say they should be that way. I think this notion applies to everyday life as well, and perhaps I’ll discuss it in a future post.

This country is changing in a way that isn’t completely clear at this particular juncture in time. Americans are demanding change and may find themselves waking up in a different country on the morning of November 5th, 2008.

RELATED POST: Who Should I Vote For?: John McCain

With the results of Hawaii, Washington, and Wisconsin Primaries in, we are getting a better sense of who the nominee will be in each Party. On the GOP side, it is a forgone conclusion that Senator John McCain will win the nomination. As far as the Democrats are concerned, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck and neck in terms of Delegates and the overall popular vote, but Obama is certainly pulling away with the momentum of pulling off ten straight victories over the last few weeks.

Although it is impossible right now to predict who will win the nomination for the Democratic Party without the seeing the results of the contests in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, I believe it is nonetheless possible to predict the outcome of the General Election in November, using the results of the primaries so far.

But First, A Different Take

Before I do that, I wanted to take a moment to point out another method, perhaps the “established” method for predicting the winner in the 2008 Election. In the established method, we would take the results of the last Presidential Election and assume as a benchmark that the Republicans would win the same states they won last time (the so-called “Red States”) and the Democrats would again win the states won by Kerry (the so-called “Blue States”). This method of looking at the electoral map is outlined (albeit from what appears to be a GOP perspective) in an intersting blog post on Patriot City. The writer describes that in order to determine who wins, the game becomes a matter of “flipping” states from one side to the next. In other words, the onus is on the Democrats to improve upon last time, rather than on the Republicans to make any new gains. The Democrats could “flip” Florida or Ohio, for example.

This method depends on the assumption that voters’ opinions are basically unchanged since the last election. I believe this traditional look at the Electoral Map is flawed, as it does not take into account the extreme dissatisfaction a majority of Americans have for GWB, the growing infatuation many Americans hold for Barack Obama, the uncertainty about the economy, the downward spiral in Iraq since 2004, the hatred many Right Wing Republicans have for John McCain, and perhaps most importantly, the overwhelming demand for change that is driving record-numbers of voters to the polls during these Primaries.

Voter Turnout: Democrats to the Polls in Record Numbers

I got the idea for this post while watching the results of the popular vote in each primary over the past couple of months. I was struck by what appeared to be an overwhelming turnout on the Democratic side, regardless of how the Republicans fared in each contest. So I decided to go back through all of the results of the primaries so far and discovered some pretty striking numbers.

I went through each state and added up how many votes each of the five major candidates (Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, Huckabee) on both sides received in each contest. The numbers below equal the total number of votes cast for each candidate. Here are current tallies (not including Washington and Hawaii) in terms of the popular vote for each major candidate:

Barack Obama: 10,625,401 total votes

Hilary Clinton: 10,352,875 total votes

John McCain: 5,815,561 total votes

Mitt Romney: 4,273,809 total votes

Mike Huckabee: 2,958,786 total votes

By simply looking at these numbers, it is evident that both of the Democratic candidates have mobilized more actual voters than any of the Republican candidates. By nearly a 2-1 basis, either Obama or Clinton has earned more votes than John McCain and Mitt Romney, and both of the Democrats have “out-turned-out” voters by a 3-1 basis in comparison to Mike Huckabee.

It is widely acknowledged that voter turnout has been unprecedented during this primary election cycle. And while not every General Election voter participates in the primaries for a variety of reasons, it is safe to assume that the voters who do turn out for these Primary elections will most likely vote in the General Election.

While unscientific, I believe the results here are a good indicator of a proportionate turnout during the General Election, in which (obviously) the field in that contest will be narrowed to one candidate for each party. Again, compiling the total votes of Clinton and Obama and comparing that figure against the total votes of all three Republican candidates combined, we see that Democrats have still mobilized more overall voters than the Republicans, 19,879,615-12,664,729, or 61% to 39%, indicating an overwhelming majority of support which should carry through the General Election, right?

Primaries vs. Polls

A “realist” might argue that this doesn’t match up to recent polling data, which suggests that the General Election race is much tighter than my unscientific analysis is suggesting. However, recent evidence suggest that our traditional methods for polling Registered voters, normally involving a telephone call to home phone landlines, can no longer accurately gauge the will of the electorate, especially with more and more voters under the age of 40 abandoning home landlines and using cell phones as their primary phone numbers. This vast segment of the population can no longer be accurately reached, rendering traditional polling less and less relevant.

Additionally, I would submit that what could be more accurate than an actual election to determine the will of the electorate? It is one thing for a pollster to get a potential voter to answer a few questions on the phone, but a whole new challenge for a candidate to get a voter to actually leave their home, take time off work, and cast a vote. In this way, I think the aggregate raw numbers of these recent Primary elections is a far more accurate means of predicting the will of the electorate.

The Electoral College and the “Magic Number”

What I’ve done so far is use the Primary Elections results to essentially predict the result of the popular vote in the General Election. While perhaps interesting, this analysis alone does not constitute an accurate prediction of which candidate will actually win the Presidency, because as we all know (painfully so in 2000), the popular vote does not determine the Presidency. Instead, our election system uses the Electoral College to determine a President. I’d like to talk more about this system in future posts, but the most important thing to understand about the Electoral College is the “magic number” of votes needed to secure the Presidency, which is 270.

See, the General Election for the Presidency isn’t really a national election. It is the combined result of 50 simultaneous state elections. If a candidate wins a state, he or she earns the electoral votes awarded to that state, which are based upon the size of their congressional delegation (US Senators and US Representatives combined). Big states like California and Texas have 55 and 34 electoral votes respectively, while small states like Delaware and Alaska each have three electoral votes. Thus, some states (the more populous states) are more important than others.

Predicting Electoral Votes

Again, using the results of the primaries, I went back and determined an overall winner for each state, regardless of Party. In other words, whichever candidate earned the most raw votes, “won” the state. I also employ a general assumption to use these results as a predictor the General Election: if a candidate earns the most overall votes, that candidate’s Party would win the state in the general election , regardless of which candidate is actually on the ballot at that time. For example, Mitt Romney won Michigan on the Republican side, with 337,847 votes to John McCain’s 257,521 votes. In my system, Mitt Romney wins the entire state as he earned more votes than the leading candidate on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, who earned 328,151 votes overall. Even though Romney will not be on the ticket in the General election, I am still awarding this state to the Republican side, as the Republican candidate earned more overall votes than the leading Democratic candidate. So, in my system the GOP candidate, which would most likely be John McCain, would earn 17 electoral votes for winning Michigan. (I recognize an inherent flaw in this system, considering that Romney was a “native son” in Michigan, which probably explains why he won more votes than any other candidate. As I have no way to adjust for this or to predict whether or not Romney might be on the ticket as the VP, thereby possibly ensuring that this result carries through to the General Election, I have no choice but to keep the State of Michigan on GOP win column, assuming that this flaw may be counterbalanced by other inherent flaws in my system. One of these flaws might be the fact that none of John Edwards’ popular votes were accounted for in my method, which may tip the balance even further towards the side of the Democrats).

State By State Electoral Vote Breakdown, by Candidate

Below is a list of each state, followed by which candidate on either side won the most overall popular votes. The number next to each of these candidates designates the Electoral votes at stake, which are “won” by the winner in each state.

Washington, DC : Obama – 3
Maryland: Obama – 10
Virginia: Obama – 13
Kansas: Obama – 6
Louisiana: Obama – 9
Washington: Obama – 11
Alabama: Obama – 9
Colorado: Obama – 9
Connecticut: Obama – 7
Delaware: Obama – 3
Georgia: Obama – 15
Illinois: Obama – 21
Minnesota: Obama – 10
Missouri: Obama – 11
North Dakota: Obama – 3
South Carolina: Obama – 8
Hawaii: Obama – 3
Wisconsin: Obama – 10
Iowa: Obama – 7

OBAMA TOTAL: 168 Electoral Votes

Arkansas: Clinton – 6
California: Clinton – 55
Massachusetts: Clinton – 12
New Jersey: Clinton – 15
New York: Clinton – 31
Oklahoma: Clinton – 7
Tennessee: Clinton – 11
Florida: Clinton – 27
New Hampshire: Clinton – 4
CLINTON TOTAL: 168 Electoral Votes

Maine: Romney – 4
Alaska: Romney – 3
Utah: Romney – 5
Nevada: Romney – 5
Michigan: Romney – 17
ROMNEY TOTAL: 34 Electoral Votes

Arizona: McCain – 10
MCCAIN TOTAL: 10 Electoral Votes

As you can see, no single candidate would have enough Electoral Votes to win the Presidency at this point. As these numbers do not include the results for Washington, New Mexico, Idaho, and Nebraska on the Republican side, nor Montana, West Virginia, and Wyoming on the Democratic side, nor Ohio, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota for both sides, it is not yet a complete picture. But that doesn’t stop me from using the data in hand to predict a winner in the General, nonetheless.

Re-Writing the Electoral Map: Landslide Winner Predicted

With just these partial numbers in hand it is already possible to predict a winner using my system, in this case by landslide, if you add up the “current” electoral votes by Party.

TOTAL GOP: 44 Electoral Votes

TOTAL DEM: 336 Electoral Votes

As you can see, Democratic candidates are winning more popular votes and more states than any of the Republican candidates. I predict it will be a landslide victory for the Democratic candidate, whether it’s Hillary or Obama, a la Reagan’s victories in 1980 (489-49) and 1984 (525-13) and George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988 (426-111).

The Democratic victory in 2008 will in effect re-write the “Red State/Blue State” Electoral map we’ve grown accustomed to over the last few election cycles. The dynamism of Obama or the warm memories that many working class Americans hold for the Clintons will sway voters in Southern states and Western states that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

It is clear that Americans want change. In 2008, they will get it.


RELATED POSTS: Clinton’s Fuzzy Math: The Fiction of “Winning” the Popular Vote, Who Should I Vote For?, Part III: Not Mitt Romney!, Who Should I Vote For?, Part II: John McCain, Who Should I Vote For?, Part I.