Originally posted by alternateuniverse
2008: Obama 53% vs. McCain 47%
It's hard to fathom Obama getting that landslide in 2012. Any thoughts?-
Not to be nitpicky but the popular vote is clearly not the standard for a landslide or mandate from the people. Look at these two examples...
This sir, is a landslide...
What is scary about this picture is that while the winner R. Reagan (peace be upon him) won only 58.0 of the popular vote but won 48 of the possible
States in EC votes. Clearly, this man has a mandate.
This is not a landslide...
Even though he won 53% of the popular vote he only carried 29 of the 50 States in EC votes. This is not a clear mandate it is the left and West
Coasts dictating for the most part what the flyover States shall do. This is hardly a mandate from the people as Obama likes to sell it. It is a
country divided which is why he is getting nothing done.
While I think the electoral college is perhaps the best system for the national vote for POTUS it does scare me a little… You need at least 270
electoral votes to win. The fewest number of states you could win and be POTUS would be 11. That means 20% of the States or so can dictate to the
other 80% what they would have to do and their votes would be irrelevant.
The good thing is that a couple of the biggest ones trend to Republican. Those two being Texas and Florida. If those two States ever swing Democrat
the rest of the States might as well secede.
BTW The 11 States needed are: Ca-55, Tx-34, Fl-27, Ga-15, Nc-15, NJ-15, Pa-21, Ny-31, Oh-20, Mi-17, Il-17
No other combination of 11 states could give you 270 electoral votes.
The inverse is just as scary a candidate could win 39 states and DC and still lose and probably not even carry the popular vote because of the way the
EC votes are apportioned.
All that said; a popular vote would be worse
as according to this map….
If even half of the people of the State of California, New York, Florida and Texas voted for a certain candidate they could in effect negate 100% of
the votes (which is not likely that 100% of a State would vote for one candidate but for the sake of argument bear with me) of more than 15-20 of the
other States thus totally making the voices of the people of those States irrelevant. If you add a couple more of the key Dem voting States like IL,
and WI etc. it'd be worse. If we switched to a popular vote the liberal States would dictate national policy. (That would be cool then we could all
be bankrupt like them).
Anyway once we start writing off States no one will campaign there, listen to or care about the citizen’s wishes for 15-20 of the States. They
would become totally irrelevant – who would care about them then in the federal scheme of things? It would be just like in 1860 - the winner a
foregone conclusion. We all know how that turned out.
edit on 27/9/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)