Electoral College Map

[ViolentZ]

I have no idea on how to interpret these. Somehow these graphs are very important cause every major political scientists are reporting on these. I have found the latest polls and graphs, but I have no idea what i'm looking at. Could anybody help me out with this ?



Let's start with california. I see a blue colour which means it's a democratic state ? I see the number 55. Does this mean all 55 delegates are for Obama ?

Below we see the number 332 for obama and 206 for romney, i presume this is the summation of all blue states obama) and summation of all red states (romney).
Does this scenario implicate that obama would win ?


And most importantly, how are these numbers construed. Did they just use polls and infer that obama will swoop the delegates for california? (most likely cause that's a hardcore blue state)

My source:
http://frontloading.blogspot.be/

[ViolentZ]

whut ?

I'm not american, i'm just relatively new into american politics

[Streetbull]

whut ?

I'm not american, i'm just relatively new into american politics

This has an Obama landslide pictured. Do you think Obama is going to win in a landslide?

[ViolentZ]

This has an Obama landslide pictured. Do you think Obama is going to win in a landslide?

You think the source is biased ?
Pls show me another source.

Anyone who as enough academic experience and understanding to follow "every top political scientist" (what the **** does that even mean) would surely be able to research how the American presidential vote actually works. It probably would have taken as long as it did to write that post. A couple of articles and a youtube video and you'll have a good understanding of the system. You be trollin.

Top political scientist = works in a ivy league university, best newspapers (nytimes) quote him and he has shown to be reliable, no partisan bullshet. Josh putnam is one example of someone I trust.

Also i'm not american, first time I encounter these graphs. Instead of being a dick, you can post good videos/articles for me on how to interpret these

[amtharin]

Let's start with california. I see a blue colour which means it's a democratic state ? I see the number 55. Does this mean all 55 delegates are for Obama ?

Yes

Below we see the number 332 for obama and 206 for romney, i presume this is the summation of all blue states obama) and summation of all red states (romney).
Does this scenario implicate that obama would win ?

Yes, but this is just a poll.

And most importantly, how are these numbers construed. Did they just use polls and infer that obama will swoop the delegates for california? (most likely cause that's a hardcore blue state)

Delegate numbers are based on the population mostly. Also each state automatically get 2, regardless of population.

See: The Great Compromise.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

[PaulG]

If you win 2/3 of PA, OH, and FL. You win the election.

Candidates spend 90% of their time campaigning there.

It was predicted that Obama would win along time ago.

[ViolentZ]

This has an Obama landslide pictured. Do you think Obama is going to win in a landslide?

2008
Obama 360+
Mccain 173

@amtharin: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amtharin again.

Delegate numbers are based on the population mostly. Also each state automatically get 2, regardless of population.

See: The Great Compromise.

So the delegate numbers are constant, eg california has 55 this year. Let's presume obama gets 55% of the vote there and romney 45%. Does obama gets his fair share of delegates(proportional) or is it winner takes all ? If it's the first, then the blue/red colour is a bit misleading.

PA, OH, and FL.

Really ? but they are small states ?
Is it because we already know that obama will get cali and romney texas etc that we only look at the most interdasting swing states like the 3 you mentioned ?

[IAmBatman]

Delegate numbers are based on the population mostly. Also each state automatically get 2, regardless of population.

is it 2 or 3? I thought it was 3 but I could be wrong.

[amtharin]

If you win 2/3 of PA, OH, and FL. You win the election.

Candidates spend 90% of their time campaigning there.

It was predicted that Obama would win along time ago.

Huh?? You need like 270 to win.

[amtharin]

So the delegate numbers are constant, eg california has 55 this year.

They can change if population changes, but for the most part they are pretty constant.

Let's presume obama gets 55% of the vote there and romney 45%. Does obama gets his fair share of delegates(proportional) or is it winner takes all ? If it's the first, then the blue/red colour is a bit misleading.

Winner takes all.

[ViolentZ]

Member since 2008. Over 3000 post. Regular in R/P. Ron Paul in your sig. Maybe you should have taken the time to aware yourself then.

I spend a lot of time following the Gop candidates, delegates, beauty contests, dealt a lot with paultards etc...those were primarily GOP.
Now my focus is on race to the white house, so the process is a bit different.

One step at a time.

Winner takes all.

Goddamn!
I see more red states, but they all have such small delegate numbers and vice versa, less blue states but their numbers are big. Are there different kinds of electoral college maps, which one do you use ?

[amtharin]

is it 2 or 3? I thought it was 3 but I could be wrong.

The wiki link I posted says 2, and that is what I remember from my school days.

[amtharin]

Goddamn!
I see more red states, but they all have such small delegate numbers and vice versa, less blue states but their numbers are big. Are there different kinds of electoral college maps, which one do you use ?

Even more surprising is if you were to break down the individual blue state, by county, they would also be a majority red. However the counties around the major cities (i.e. where the poplation is centered) it would be blue.

Such as this...

[ViolentZ]

Seems that OHio is where the victory line is:

Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Based on the electoral college spectrum (which i can't copy paste)
edit: prtscreen:

I'm counting 7 toss up states that are in favor of obama (only slightly) and Pa, Oh and FL are in there. Seems like it's looking good for obama.

[amtharin]

Seems that OHio is where the victory line is:

Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Based on the electoral college spectrum (which i can't copy paste)

I'm counting 7 toss up states that are in favor of obama (only slightly) and Pa, Oh and FL are in there. Seems like it's looking good for obama.

Again, that is a poll, and is seems you are putting too much confidence in their results.

I think most believe that Obama will not win FL this time around.

[ViolentZ]

Again, that is a poll, and is seems you are putting too much confidence in their results.

I think most believe that Obama will not win FL this time around.

True, but Josh putnam uses multiple polls and averages and puts more weight to the newest polls.

This was the newest poll in florida (prtscreen)


But as you can see, josh admits this is an outlier:

"Florida:
Outlier status for the time being. Not even the Priorties USA poll out last week had Obama with this large of a lead in the Sunshine state".

FL gotta be the most interdasting state to follow!

[amtharin]

True, but Josh putnam uses multiple polls and averages and puts more weight to the newest polls.

This was the newest poll in florida (prtscreen)


But as you can see, josh admits this is an outlier:

"Florida:
Outlier status for the time being. Not even the Priorties USA poll out last week had Obama with this large of a lead in the Sunshine state".

FL gotta be the most interdasting state to follow!

I'd like to see a better break down of their "647 likely voters".

[JrM703]

I applied to the Electoral College in 2002, but I got rejected.

[ViolentZ]

I think I can find the source but i'm not going to delve into their methodology. Survey usa is probably a trademark now so I have no reason to question them.

Source of that particular poll here: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...4-24a8c4975bc3

[ViolentZ]

What source do you guys use ?

Josh says:

the weighting of various polls matters, but so too do the number of polls conducted in a state. The far greater number of polls in Florida gives a better indication that the Sunshine state does ever so slightly favor the president at the moment.

[GiantMonkey]

Unfortunately not every vote in the U.S. is equal.

This.

I hate the electoral college, it basically makes my vote count for nothing and the only reason any canidate shows up in my area is to make money.

From what I understand each state gets a minimum of 3 votes. The amount of votes a state recieves is based on the amount of people in congress, so 2 for the senate and 1 minimum for the house.

[TheOligarch]

I doubt Obama will win Florida. However if he can maintain his leads in Michigan and Ohio he won't need Florida.

If Obama wins Florida, it's game over. I know the retards in here will shout 270!!! But that means Romney has to win North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and either (just 1) Nevada, Colorado or New Hampshire. Does anyone think Romney will win all of those? Hell no.

[Phil9]

Excluding Maine and Nebraska, all states use a winner-take-all system. 51% of the vote in a state is just as good as 99% of the vote as far as the electoral college is concerned.

[PSToolman]

States have at least three electors in the electoral college. The number of electors a state has equals the number of reps they have in congress: Two in the Senate, and at least one rep in the House. Most states award electoral votes in an all-or-none manner to the winner of the popular vote in that state. California is expected to favor Obama (thank God I don't live in a battleground state!) and thus all 55 of our electoral votes will go to him.

We already know with pretty reasonable certainty how most states are going to fall. Those where the polls are close are where campaining will be at its fiercest, and the most interesting for political junkies.

[PSToolman]

is it 2 or 3? I thought it was 3 but I could be wrong.

It's three. Each state has two senators and one House rep. That's how we determine the number of electors.

This system gives slightly more power to voters in smaller states.

[Streetbull]

I'd be curious to ask those people making Obama such a favorite in those polls, 'Why'?

He blamed Bush for everything but copies him.
Bush Tax Cuts...keep 'em.
GITMO..............keep it.
Increasing debt..keep doing it and more.

I also haven't seen any 'Hope and Change'. Using Executive Priv is 'transparency'???

Seriously, wtf are they voting for HIM for? Because he copies Bush? I thought Bush was dumb. So Obama copies him and he (Obama) is a genius that gets..their...votes?

These people remind me of those who say that if they can't vote for Ron Paul, they will vote for Obama, RP's opposite. WTF???

[Tekkendo]

That is just a wishful thinking electoral map by the obamatards...

They still think Pelosi's Dems won the 2010 midterm. LOL

[Phil9]

It's three. Each state has two senators and one House rep. That's how we determine the number of electors.

This system gives slightly more power to voters in smaller states.

Yes and no. It's a system that gives smaller states more representation in the Senate because a state like Rhode Island holds the same amount of U.S. Senators as a state like Texas or California. As far as the electoral college goes though, the smaller states are rarely given any thought while almost all of the battleground states are the medium to large populated states [Florida, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are all top 10 in population]. New Hampshire is pretty much the only small state that could be considered "battleground."

[kate00]

Do you think Obama is going to win in a landslide?

Yes.

[lsiberian]

I'd be curious to ask those people making Obama such a favorite in those polls, 'Why'?

He blamed Bush for everything but copies him.
Bush Tax Cuts...keep 'em.
GITMO..............keep it.
Increasing debt..keep doing it and more.

I also haven't seen any 'Hope and Change'. Using Executive Priv is 'transparency'???

Seriously, wtf are they voting for HIM for? Because he copies Bush? I thought Bush was dumb. So Obama copies him and he (Obama) is a genius that gets..their...votes?

These people remind me of those who say that if they can't vote for Ron Paul, they will vote for Obama, RP's opposite. WTF???

I'm definitely leaning Obama, but I might be swayed if Romney can be compelling. Honestly I doubt he will be. Why would him keeping Bush's policies make me less likely to vote for him Romney would do the same stuff Bush did? Democrats and Republicans hate me, but I really didn't think Bush or Obama was that bad. But then again I don't sit around blaming the government for my problems either.