In the 2008 election, there are only 6 states that are truly swing states, states that can go either way. Of these, between 80 and 95 percent of voters have already decided who the will vote for. It is only truly these people who have the power in this election. The stats are: State----------% of Population-----------% Undecided--% of total US pop. New Hampshire-----0.4%------------------------15%--------.0006 Ohio---------------0.5%------------------------ 8%--------.00025 Michigan-----------3.3%------------------------16%--------.000528 Colorado-----------1.6%------------------------17%--------.000272 New Mexico--------0.6%------------------------14%--------.000084 Nevada------------0.8%------------------------15%--------.00012 Total--------------7.2%-------------------------N/A--------.0007254 (0.073%) Thus, in total, assuming a turnout similar to 2004, 88,500 people decide the fate of this country. That's why I ask: Is this election really democratic? When you are only really campaigning to 88,500 people out of 122,000,000 who voted in the last presidential election, what about the other 122,000,000? Comments, math errors, any responses welcome. Main source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html
The others are concerned about more important things....working, sex, in prison, too young, ignorant, forgot, sick, not registered or just gone crazy or do not care.
122,000,000 is the number of people who voted in the 2004 election. But really, 88.5 k people is just one largeish town. Basically, less people than live in Palm bay, Florida decide the election. That really just isn't democratic. When 99.937% of people who vote have no decision in the presidential election at all, that doesn't seem to be the principals that the USA was founded on.
The fact that the people had decided to vote for who does not matter, what matters most is that the people can exercise their vote out of free will.
I really don't understand the logic in coming to the conclusion that the other 99.937%(assuming your numbers are even right) play no part. When an American football team wins the game by a 3 point field goal with a final score of 20-17, do you just count the final score as 3-0?
As far as I'm concerned, yes. Its a triage. And sorry, bad subtraction. The real number is 99.927%. But This means that neither Obama or McCain care about your vote, they only care about those 88.5 K votes. If the 440,000 votes Nader got in the last election were cast there, it could determine who became president. 5 times over.
Your logic is seriously flawed. Of course Obama and McCain care about your vote, they could always do something to cause you to change your mind. If they did this they not only lose a vote, they possibly give a vote to the other side. Many do vote simply on party lines, that is a huge problem in this nation that needs to be addressed. That however will not be addressed properly until we get rid of the 2 party system and until people start actually looking at the candidate and not the party. Most people I have spoken so far locally who support McCain do not like him, but they claim such things as 'they can not take the chance on Obama. When speaking to them it's obvious they have no clue of the actual facts, all they do is spout off what they heard at the water cooler. Such thing such as Obama being a terrorist, an extreme Muslim and the like. --- BTW Wisconsin is not solid Democrat, it would easily swing republican.
My vote obviously matters I make up that small amount in a certain swing state. To me, we do need to destroy the two party system, however that is a big change and will be hard to accomplish. People, more particularly the older population (30+), hate major changes and are opposed to it most of the time.
The press is Nobamic people or not sure.. the guy who calls a monther of 5 a Pig wants to win and have the money to buy lot of votes.
I'm saying that the election is really determined by those 88.5k votes. Stroh: Make your choice carefully as it really counts!
This doesn't makes any sense, it assumes too much and it implies that people in "solid states" don't count without providing basis to prove that. If all those people in "solid states" stayed home or voted differently than the polls assume, it throws the entire calculation out. And no, the U.S. isn't a Democracy/Republic, its an aristocratic kleptocracy. Doesn't matter who anyone votes for.
In a simplified model, if it was a straight democratic vote in a country of 100 people, and 49 voted for candidate A while 51 voted for candidate B... you could say by the same logic that the votes of 2 people decided the election, which isnt really true. Had any of the others voted differently or stayed home, the outcome could easily flip. The fact that polls *project* those firm red or firm blue states are gonna go one way or the other doesnt bind the voters to vote as projected, so yes, their vote counts and there are numerous states that have changed overall tendencies in my lifetime. The change is sometimes massive and fast like when Reagan took all but one state electorally, sometimes slow. A lot of what are now called "red states" by the media were once a Democratic stronghold... Texas and the states due east were known as "yellow dog democrat" states. The reasoning was that people would vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket instead of voting Republican. In Texas the GOP often didnt bother to campaign, the race was between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Democrat. That hasnt been that many years ago. Bottom line... the projections are educated guesses. The outcome is determined by who shows up at the polls and sometimes its a razor thin difference. The votes count regardless of which state youre in.
PLAY THE HOME GAME Here are some sites that'll help those that want to follow the results and track the election. They also help put the historical differences in perspective, and let you do sensitivity analyis (aka: "what-if") on how the outcome differs depending on which state goes which way. Poll projections map by state Current Electoral projections map (includes prior races) That second one is fascinating to work with. For example, everyone credits the 2000 race to the florida decision... but the fact that new mexico (supposed to go democrat that year) went republican was a huge factor. Had it gone the other way the dems still would have won. Often the margins by which a state goes one way or the other is paper thin... a committed campaign operation in a state that is supposedly in the bag can affect the outcome. Looking at the two races before that, especially the first clinton win... it looks pretty obvious the race would have gone the other way but for ross perot's presence as a third party splitting the conservative vote. Lot of "what if"s these maps can do. [I had waay too many hours of stat in college... I know, I enjoy weird things]
You know it's actually possible that there could be a tie. "Here's an amazing fact. If you take the 2004 results, give McCain New Hampshire, which Kerry won, which I think is reasonable, give Obama New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa, which Bush won, in all of which now Obama is ahead, you end up -- leave everything else the same, which is quite possible, you end up with 269-269 result. That would be fun." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-269-269-electoral-tie_b_106637.html If this happens I think it could be crazier than 2000.
divide and rule...anybody who thinks power is actually handed to the people every 4 years is very very naive...the system is set up like this for a very very good reason LOL...
We use to be a republic. That was before the 17th amendment causing senators to be elected by votes from the people and not appointed by state legislatures. The founders intended for us to be a republic and not democratic. The senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states while the representatives represent the interests of the people (haha). This brought a balance of power between state and federal governments (federalism). The 17th amendment has greatly reduced the power of the states (do they even have any?). The 17th amendment is the absolute worst piece of legislation, ever. It has brought about these crazy expensive senate campaigns, limiting those who can run. If senators were appointed by state legislatures more people would get a chance at office. The senators use to be like a "wall" of sorts to special interest because they didn't need to campaign before. Senators were also free to make the decision for the good of the country and not their public image or campaign run. This would lead to an overall decrease in lobbying because the BS legislation being pushed though the House wouldn't stand a chance in the Senate, no guarantee on votes like they are now because lobbyists are in the Senators pockets. If no 17th amendment I would bet we would see the deficit shrink considerably and at a good pace. We need the states to get their say back in government. Before the repeal of the 16th or Fed (two other goodies from 1913) we need to get rid of the 17th. I believe with the trashing of the 17th would come the repeal of the 16th and the Fed. Unless people are fine with the status quo of spending ourselves into oblivion at the hands of the ever-growing Senate and Executive branch oligarchies else we need to wake up. Some other stuff: It would also not be possible to get anything like Social Security, Medicaid, "New Deal", Department of this n' that, it would die in the Senate. Without this amendment it would have been impossible for the federal govt to have grown beyond its constitutional limits. Hopefully that was coherent.