U.S. Election Day — Obama vs. Romney

Unknown Soldier · 11-08-2012, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

The electoral vote is based on population density you're correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

The key is to win the bigger swing states like Florida and Ohio because the states with the largest numbers of electoral votes tend to lean heavily toward one party or the other (i.e. California is pretty reliably Democrat, Texas is pretty reliably Republican).

So if Romney had captured these swing states, he could be sitting in the White House now and Obama packing his bags? But I guess, it depends on how many big swing states there were.

FRED HALE SR. · 11-08-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

So if Romney had captured these swing states, he could be sitting in the White House now and Obama packing his bags? But I guess, it depends on how many big swing states there were.

There were five swing states that Romney desired. Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada. It would have made for a close race in the electoral vote if he had succeeded.

hip hop bunny hop · 11-08-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

For the first time today, I saw a UK newspaper from Monday that had a map of how the voting was expected to go in each state. Romney had like 80% of these states with Obama the rest. I thought what, how can Obama win!!! Then I saw it was done by seats (or whatever you call it there) and states like California, New York and Illinois had a huge amount of these seats (California 55 I think) compared to say states like Montana (3 I think). Which leads me to think, that the key is to win in the really big states in terms of population and power and add a few others etc and you're guaranteed victory. Is the Presidential race as easy as I just described or not?

Right, which is one reason why in states with few electors there anti-federal tendencies are so high. Montana's one member of the house & three electors are essentially worthless, yet - despite this - the Federal Govt. owns 1/4th of land in the state....

Unknown Soldier · 11-08-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

Right, which is one reason why in states with few electors there anti-federal tendencies are so high. Montana's one member of the house & three electors are essentially worthless, yet - despite this - the Federal Govt. owns 1/4th of land in the state....

I see the logic there, but given the sparsity of people there, what would be the alternative to Montana having its voice heard in the government? I'm sure there are lots of states like Montana.

**Janszoon** · 11-08-2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I see the logic there, but given the sparsity of people there, what would be the alternative to Montana having its voice heard in the government? I'm sure there are lots of states like Montana.

Actually, as it stands right now, the people in sparsely populated states have a disproportionately large per capita voice in elections. This is one of the reasons rural values are overrepresented in American politics.

Bloozcrooz · 11-08-2012, 02:15 PM

I heard on the news last night about Puerto Rico voting to become our 51rst. Of course it has to pass through congress but any thoughts?

JustJunMC · 11-08-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Dude, 3 million is 1% of America's population. That's peanuts. I don't see why you don't understand this.

Dude, perhaps if you actually read what I wrote, you would see I understand this, and I simply stated that 3 million people even by the percentage is a large number and getting that number of people to vote is no easy task otherwise we would all be president

JustJunMC · 11-08-2012, 02:24 PM

Obama got some of the big states such as California with 55 electoral votes

hip hop bunny hop · 11-08-2012, 02:40 PM

In regards to your question, there are seven states with three electors (both dakotas, wyoming, vermont, alaska, delaware & montana). To give you an idea how large an area this is, Montana itself is bigger than Japan, and these states combined areas are bigger than one million square miles.

Devolving powers from the Federal Government to the states in general seems unlikely, as we've been moving to inexorably in the opposite direction since FDR (if not before) & because the whole Democratic party seems vehemently opposed to any notion of states rights. Somehow, to these Liberals, binding these states up further in the apparatus of the Federal Government in which they've so little say is increasing their relative freedom.

Hence why there are rumblings, from Bill Maher to Fareed Zakaria, to actually decrease the power of the less-populated states in the senate. It seems as though even though the people of these states have essentially no power over issues of drafting budgets, declaring war, & impeaching presidents, having some power in one of three branches of federal government is just too much, :P

**Janszoon** · 11-08-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

In regards to your question, there are seven states with three electors (both dakotas, wyoming, vermont, alaska, delaware & montana). To give you an idea how large an area this is, Montana itself is bigger than Japan, and these states combined areas are bigger than one million square miles.

What is the relevance of the geographical size of the states? Land areas don't vote, populations do, and states like Montana contain a very, very tiny sliver of the American population.

View Poll Results: Who has your vote?
OBAMA/BIDEN	35	59.32%
ROMNEY/RYAN	7	11.86%
My cat.	17	28.81%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

11-08-2012, 02:24 PM	#538 (permalink)
JustJunMC Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Hongcouver & Global Posts: 125	Obama got some of the big states such as California with 55 electoral votes __________________ So now I cant even post my own nickname in my signature or have an avatar of a graphic design I made that has my username on here? I dont know who is doing it but please provide a legit reason why my material is suddenly being singled out. Thanks

11-08-2012, 02:40 PM	#539 (permalink)
hip hop bunny hop Music Addict Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,381	In regards to your question, there are seven states with three electors (both dakotas, wyoming, vermont, alaska, delaware & montana). To give you an idea how large an area this is, Montana itself is bigger than Japan, and these states combined areas are bigger than one million square miles. Devolving powers from the Federal Government to the states in general seems unlikely, as we've been moving to inexorably in the opposite direction since FDR (if not before) & because the whole Democratic party seems vehemently opposed to any notion of states rights. Somehow, to these Liberals, binding these states up further in the apparatus of the Federal Government in which they've so little say is increasing their relative freedom. Hence why there are rumblings, from Bill Maher to Fareed Zakaria, to actually decrease the power of the less-populated states in the senate. It seems as though even though the people of these states have essentially no power over issues of drafting budgets, declaring war, & impeaching presidents, having some power in one of three branches of federal government is just too much, :P __________________ Have mercy on the poor.