The vote in the electoral college is the only one that matters From Real Clear Politics RCP POLL AVERAGE ELECTORAL VOTES States Obama Romney Obama Romney Colo. 47.8% 47.8% 0 9 Fla. 47.1% 48.9% 0 29 Iowa 49.0% 46.7% 6 0 Nev. 49.7% 47.2% 6 0 N.H. 48.3% 47.2% 4 0 N.C. 46.5% 50.3% 0 15 Ohio 48.0% 45.7% 18 0 Va. 46.8% 48.0% 0 13 Wis. 49.3% 47.0% 10 0 Swing-State Votes 44 66 Leaning/Likely State Votes 237 191 Total Overall Votes Obama281 Romney257 538 Electoral Votes to Win
Amendment offered to change presidential elections... Dem's amendment would give 29 more electoral votes to popular-vote winner 10/26/12 - Democrat's proposal would give 29 more electoral votes to popular-vote winner
Whose deck do you need to swab to become a member of the US electoral college? WHY is it called a college? What's the tuition cost? Is it less than 1 Million dollars? Is it by invitation only? Are all the rich people on there? Is Abraham Lincoln still a member? Who tallies their vote? Are they Americans? What corporations do they own? What corporations own them? Are they members of US Government? Do they have any powers of state? Is being the sole decider of US Tyrannists their only purpose? How are they any different than other fraudulent elections where a group of individuals behind the scenes mollests the popular vote? The people want to know.
Personally I think the solution is having each state's citizens vote for the candidates themselves, and the winner in each state gets a vote toward a national tally. Winner of the national tally becomes President. My response to popular vote'rs: If the Federal government only has power in matters between states then there's no problem with the citizenry at large not being represented. It's only when the government oversteps its bounds and starts dealing in internal state affairs that you need representation. Should larger states by population get more votes? Not sure on that one. There are arguments for and against, but generally I feel that each state should get a single vote, with the Federal District of Columbia being given a vote too (half the reason the US revolted in the first place was taxation without representation). I feel this way because I view the United States as a union of states, in the same way that a state is a union of citizens. States should have power in matters between citizens, the Union should have power in matters between states. I also think parties should elect their Vice Presidential nominees again, but that's not a government matter.
two things to note. 1) The state averages are typically older than national polls. The state averages, usually, pull polls from a month ago, sometimes further back. 2) almost all of these are within 2 points. 3) Romney has the momentum, and solid national leads which, with time, will translate to better state polling. The more recent state polling shows a better picture for Romney than the above list. So, three, that's three points. Pretty BS proposal that I'd throw out in a heartbeat. The states elect the President. The electoral college represents that, and it should continue as such. There are few times that a candidate won the electoral college without the popular vote, and the most recent one (2000) would have gone for Bush if it was the popular vote. People too often forget that Bush was playing for the electoral college (as anyone with a brain would), and he pointed out after the election that if he wanted to win the popular vote, he would have just campaigned more in Texas and got out the vote there.
