The Electoral Votes Have Been Counted (and they will matter)
After two hours of trying to get our truck out of our steep, long driveway (the snow at the bottom of it is knee high and compacted - and a snowblower is out of the question because I've been there, done that with a gravel driveway before), I've decided to dive (or drive) into a new blog. Speaking of snowdrifts... 
As we Americans know (or should know), thanks to our Constitution, our president is only indirectly elected according to popular vote, but is directly chosen by electoral vote. I won't get into the reasons why this is both a good and bad idea. Like most things, we think it's okay when it works and we hate it when it doesn't.
Let's take my state, Ohio. We'll say (hypothetically) that Clinton is running against McCain in November. If Clinton only wins Ohio by 100 popular votes, essentially a 50% to 50% tie, she will still receive ALL of Ohio's 20 electoral votes.
Why 20? Each state in America has two senators, regardless of size or population. This gives each state an equal voice in the Senate, one of the two bodies that comprise the United States Congress. But in the other congressional body, the House of Representatives, each state has a different number of representatives (congresspersons), based on each state's population. Ohio has 18 representatives. Wyoming, which has a much lower population, only has one representative in the House, but still (like every other state) has two Senators. Add the number of Senators from a state to the number of Representatives from that same state and you have the number of electoral votes the Constitution grants to a state. For Ohio, that's 2+18 or 20. (The District of Columbia, which is not a state and has no senators, is a different story that I won't go into here.)
So the loser of a state in the general election in November will get none of that state's electoral votes, even if he or she only barely loses. That's how it is in 48 of the 50 United States (Nebraska and Maine do allow for their electoral votes to be divided between candidates - but with only 5 and 4 votes, respectively, it will be rare for that to matter).
Where am I going with this?
Much ado is made of the fact that in the Democratic primaries and caucuses so far, Barack Obama was won a larger number of states (26) than has Hillary Clinton (14) - and has a slight lead in pledged delgates (according to CNN, he has 1527 so far, to her 1428, with 2021 needed to win). But neither candidate can hit the magic number 2021, even by winning every remaining state by a 55-45 ratio, without help from superdelegates and/or a revote in Florida and Michigan (two fairly populous states whose delegates aren't being counted because their Governors decided to hold their primary elections earlier than Democratic National Convention rules allow).
I want to look at it in a different way, however. What if delegates were awarded on a "winner takes all" basis like the electoral votes will be awarded in the main election in November? Guess what... that would put Hillary Clinton in the lead! And by a significant margin, I might add....
Here's a listing of the states (with their respective number of electoral votes in parentheses). Check it out:
Obama has won: Clinton has won: Haven't voted yet: Voted, but not counted:
Maine (4) N. Hampshire (4) Pennsylvania (21) Michigan (17)
Vermont (3) New York (31) West Virginia (5) Florida (27)
Connecticut (7) Massachus. (12) North Carolina (15)
Delaware (3) Rhode Island (4) Kentucky (8)
Maryland (10) New Jersey (15) Indiana (11)
Virginia (13) Texas (34) Mississippi (6)
South Carolina (8) Arkansas (6) South Dakota (3)
Georgia (8) Tennessee (11) Oregon (7)
Alabama (9) Oklahoma (7) Montana (3)
Louisiana (9) Arizona (10)
Hawai'i (4) New Mexico (5)
Alaska (3) Nevada (5)
Washington (11) California (55)
Idaho (4) Ohio (20)
Wyoming (3)
Colorado (9)
Utah (5)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Missouri (11)
Iowa (7)
North Dakota (3)
Minnesota (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Illinois (21)
District of Columbia (3)
Let's leave out Michigan and Florida, who went overwhelmingly for Clinton, but whose votes don't count (I believe they should be allowed a fair and square revote - and I believe that if they are, Hillary Clinton would still win, for reasons I'll save for a future blog). If we just go with the states that have voted so far and whose delegates are counting so far, the states Barack Obama has won add up to 196 electoral votes and the states Hillary Clinton has won add up to 219. So she's leading by 23 electoral votes so far. If I'm right and Florida and Michigan still choose Clinton after theyre allowed to re-vote, that'll give Clinton 263 electoral votes to Obama's 196 - and only 270 are required to win the presidency.
Now let's look at the states that still must vote. The way things seem to be going, Pennslyvania, which resembles Ohio in numerous important ways, is almost certain to go for Clinton (who won by a considerable margin in Ohio). Even if you give Obama all eight of the remaining states (and I think that's a stretch, since Indiana is also a lot like Ohio - and two or three others are likely to go for Clinton as well), Obama still loses to Clinton in electoral votes.
And although electoral votes play no role in the primaries, they WILL matter, whether we like it or not, in the November general election. Remember 2000? Al Gore won more of the popular vote in the United States than George W. Bush. But because Bush won the state of Florida by a slim margin and was therefore able to claim ALL of Florida's electoral votes, Bush won the presidency. And it's not the first time something similar has happened in American history (remember Rutherford B. Hayes?).
I realize the fact that Clinton beat Obama in California, Ohio and other big states doesn't mean that with Clinton out of the race Obama won't beat McCain in those states. He very well could. But it does mean that at the time these primaries were held, Clinton had more support than Obama in most of the bigger states that could be essential to a Democratic victory in the November general election.
In November, a candidate can win the 11 most populous states, lose the other 39, and STILL win the presidency (by 271 electoral votes to 267). The eleven I speak of are California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (17), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). Of these, so far Obama has won only Illinois (his home state) and Georgia. Pennsylvania and North Carolina have yet to vote, but are leaning toward Clinton. And the rest?...
We NEED a Democratic victory in November. And the Democratic leader can win more states than McCain (all 39 of the smallest is just one example) and still wind up losing the election. So while it's good to be able to win more states, one could reasonably argue that you'll have a better chance of beating the Republicans if you can win more of the bigger states.
On a side note, thank goodness the Clintons have recently suggested that Hillary, if she wins the nomination (and I believe she will) might choose Obama as her vice-presidential running mate. This, in my opinion would be the best solution, giving the Democrats (and our country) the best of both worlds, and the best opportunity to deal a long-needed defeat to a Republican Party that is leading us into unneccesary wars, giving tax subsidies to the oil companies who are making record profits, ruining our economy, curtailing our rights more and more by the minute, and speeding us down the path of environmental catastrophe.
If you haven't done so yet, please visit my recent blog entitled Clinton/Obama - The Dream Team. And thank you for bearing with me through this longer-than-usual blog. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
As we Americans know (or should know), thanks to our Constitution, our president is only indirectly elected according to popular vote, but is directly chosen by electoral vote. I won't get into the reasons why this is both a good and bad idea. Like most things, we think it's okay when it works and we hate it when it doesn't.
Let's take my state, Ohio. We'll say (hypothetically) that Clinton is running against McCain in November. If Clinton only wins Ohio by 100 popular votes, essentially a 50% to 50% tie, she will still receive ALL of Ohio's 20 electoral votes.
Why 20? Each state in America has two senators, regardless of size or population. This gives each state an equal voice in the Senate, one of the two bodies that comprise the United States Congress. But in the other congressional body, the House of Representatives, each state has a different number of representatives (congresspersons), based on each state's population. Ohio has 18 representatives. Wyoming, which has a much lower population, only has one representative in the House, but still (like every other state) has two Senators. Add the number of Senators from a state to the number of Representatives from that same state and you have the number of electoral votes the Constitution grants to a state. For Ohio, that's 2+18 or 20. (The District of Columbia, which is not a state and has no senators, is a different story that I won't go into here.)
So the loser of a state in the general election in November will get none of that state's electoral votes, even if he or she only barely loses. That's how it is in 48 of the 50 United States (Nebraska and Maine do allow for their electoral votes to be divided between candidates - but with only 5 and 4 votes, respectively, it will be rare for that to matter).
Where am I going with this?
Much ado is made of the fact that in the Democratic primaries and caucuses so far, Barack Obama was won a larger number of states (26) than has Hillary Clinton (14) - and has a slight lead in pledged delgates (according to CNN, he has 1527 so far, to her 1428, with 2021 needed to win). But neither candidate can hit the magic number 2021, even by winning every remaining state by a 55-45 ratio, without help from superdelegates and/or a revote in Florida and Michigan (two fairly populous states whose delegates aren't being counted because their Governors decided to hold their primary elections earlier than Democratic National Convention rules allow).
I want to look at it in a different way, however. What if delegates were awarded on a "winner takes all" basis like the electoral votes will be awarded in the main election in November? Guess what... that would put Hillary Clinton in the lead! And by a significant margin, I might add....
Here's a listing of the states (with their respective number of electoral votes in parentheses). Check it out:
Obama has won: Clinton has won: Haven't voted yet: Voted, but not counted:
Maine (4) N. Hampshire (4) Pennsylvania (21) Michigan (17)
Vermont (3) New York (31) West Virginia (5) Florida (27)
Connecticut (7) Massachus. (12) North Carolina (15)
Delaware (3) Rhode Island (4) Kentucky (8)
Maryland (10) New Jersey (15) Indiana (11)
Virginia (13) Texas (34) Mississippi (6)
South Carolina (8) Arkansas (6) South Dakota (3)
Georgia (8) Tennessee (11) Oregon (7)
Alabama (9) Oklahoma (7) Montana (3)
Louisiana (9) Arizona (10)
Hawai'i (4) New Mexico (5)
Alaska (3) Nevada (5)
Washington (11) California (55)
Idaho (4) Ohio (20)
Wyoming (3)
Colorado (9)
Utah (5)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Missouri (11)
Iowa (7)
North Dakota (3)
Minnesota (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Illinois (21)
District of Columbia (3)
Let's leave out Michigan and Florida, who went overwhelmingly for Clinton, but whose votes don't count (I believe they should be allowed a fair and square revote - and I believe that if they are, Hillary Clinton would still win, for reasons I'll save for a future blog). If we just go with the states that have voted so far and whose delegates are counting so far, the states Barack Obama has won add up to 196 electoral votes and the states Hillary Clinton has won add up to 219. So she's leading by 23 electoral votes so far. If I'm right and Florida and Michigan still choose Clinton after theyre allowed to re-vote, that'll give Clinton 263 electoral votes to Obama's 196 - and only 270 are required to win the presidency.
Now let's look at the states that still must vote. The way things seem to be going, Pennslyvania, which resembles Ohio in numerous important ways, is almost certain to go for Clinton (who won by a considerable margin in Ohio). Even if you give Obama all eight of the remaining states (and I think that's a stretch, since Indiana is also a lot like Ohio - and two or three others are likely to go for Clinton as well), Obama still loses to Clinton in electoral votes.
And although electoral votes play no role in the primaries, they WILL matter, whether we like it or not, in the November general election. Remember 2000? Al Gore won more of the popular vote in the United States than George W. Bush. But because Bush won the state of Florida by a slim margin and was therefore able to claim ALL of Florida's electoral votes, Bush won the presidency. And it's not the first time something similar has happened in American history (remember Rutherford B. Hayes?).
I realize the fact that Clinton beat Obama in California, Ohio and other big states doesn't mean that with Clinton out of the race Obama won't beat McCain in those states. He very well could. But it does mean that at the time these primaries were held, Clinton had more support than Obama in most of the bigger states that could be essential to a Democratic victory in the November general election.
In November, a candidate can win the 11 most populous states, lose the other 39, and STILL win the presidency (by 271 electoral votes to 267). The eleven I speak of are California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (17), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). Of these, so far Obama has won only Illinois (his home state) and Georgia. Pennsylvania and North Carolina have yet to vote, but are leaning toward Clinton. And the rest?...
We NEED a Democratic victory in November. And the Democratic leader can win more states than McCain (all 39 of the smallest is just one example) and still wind up losing the election. So while it's good to be able to win more states, one could reasonably argue that you'll have a better chance of beating the Republicans if you can win more of the bigger states.
On a side note, thank goodness the Clintons have recently suggested that Hillary, if she wins the nomination (and I believe she will) might choose Obama as her vice-presidential running mate. This, in my opinion would be the best solution, giving the Democrats (and our country) the best of both worlds, and the best opportunity to deal a long-needed defeat to a Republican Party that is leading us into unneccesary wars, giving tax subsidies to the oil companies who are making record profits, ruining our economy, curtailing our rights more and more by the minute, and speeding us down the path of environmental catastrophe.
If you haven't done so yet, please visit my recent blog entitled Clinton/Obama - The Dream Team. And thank you for bearing with me through this longer-than-usual blog. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
JC,
You are absolutly right. Gore did win by the popular vote and yes it was the electoric that put Bush in the white house. But just think if all these state were primaries where everyone could vote; disabled, working class, elderly where caucus's discriminate, then who would have both the electoric vote and the propular vote. She would be winning by a land slide.. It would not be this will of the some, it would be the will of the people. When they seat Florida and michgan the whole story will change. Thanks again for a great blog.
Lori
Reply to this
You're welcome, Lori. And thank you! I tend to prefer primary elections, too. Here in Ohio, employers will let you take an hour or two to vote in the primary - and the polls are open long enough that if you work eight-hours a day, you have time to vote either before or after work. But as we've seen in these caucus states, people often have to be there all day - and this discourages people who have small children, who have health issues, or who cannot afford to take a whole day off work from participating in the process. And you also, therefore, don't get a representative sampling of all Democratic voters who will participate in the November general election.
Reply to this
we need a democratic victory for many many reasons, including the one in tiny green letters on your myspace profile...
Reply to this
LOL... absolutely! I was tempted to list all the reasons - but this blog was already verging on too long, and I was afraid my computer would not be able to process all the gazillions of gigabytes required for a comprehensive list.
Reply to this
....i STILL don't understand the delegate/super delegate scheme. ...and it baffles me to NO end that the person with the most votes--out right--might not win. .....the only option we have for TRUE democratic reform is a Clinton/Obama partnership....however that is brought to fruition.
Reply to this
I agree... Geraldine Ferraro wrote a great article in the New York Times a week or two last week which made the whole superdelegate business make sense to me for the first time. So there was a good reason for it (I'll try to find a link to that article) - but it's still a flawed system, as we see in this election. It was designed to make sure the party remained unified, so we don't have a repeat of the 1980 election where the primary battle between Ted Kennedy and President Carter led to a Democratic defeat in November. But as we see, the superdelegates, no matter which way they go this time, will make one side of the other unhappy. A Clinton/Obama ticket (or even Obama/Cinton) would solve that to some degree and keep us united.
Reply to this
I like the way you think. I just don't think I can stand it if Hillary wins the popular vote and loses the election. I remember how awful that felt when it happened to Al Gore. That system is wrong, if you ask me. But you are right in that if it had worked out in my favor, I would not complain.Sometimes I wonder if GW, when he lays himself down to sleep at night, ever feels crappy about the way he won. Seems to me that victory is only truly sweet if it's earned. Hillary has definately earned what should be her victory. What exactly has Obama done?
Reply to this
The good news is that because Hillary has so much support in the biggest states, I'm not anticipating her coming even close to losing the elctoral vote. Add Obama to the ticket, and her chances go from very good to extremely good. My only fear is that the Republicans will try to "wag the dog" by starting a war with Iran or something to make McCain's tough talk more appealing. But I think Hillary, with her perceived toughness, would be less vulnerable than Obama to such an assault.
Reply to this
hillary is a known thief. obama may be, but we have no evidence as yet. i'll take unknown thief over known thief and liar any day of the week.
Reply to this
LOL...
I just don't think Obama can win right now OR in November - and I never have. He's done better than I expected - to his credit. But I still don't believe he'll win the nomination. And he's been caught in lies recently - so I don't see him as being an "unknown" liar by comparison with either other candidate. He may not have meant to lie when he said his advisor had not done what he did with the Canadians; but it was still a lie. Better a Democratic thief and liar than a Republican one - at least with the options we have on the table before us in this election.
Reply to this
i have to admit i'll take anybody over another republicrap. but i still push obamam over the icycle thief. plus it really bothers me the inconsistencies of her lawyer foster's "suicide" - sure worked out great for hillary.
Reply to this
"icycle thief" could be the kernel of something special - poem, blog, song or political biography.
Reply to this
But like it's pointed out later in the article, this doesn't take into account the fact that reps do better overall in some of the states, and doesn't take into account that either way, close to 100% of the dems will vote for the dem in the general election. Basically this article is useless. Let's look at total numbers of people who voted in democratic primaries vs republican (minus ron paul supporters who will not vote for mccain), and see who wins?
Reply to this
Although you left this comment on my Digg site instead of here, I hope you don't mind me copying it here, so that my other readers can read it (and if they desire) respond. In the specific sense of saying whether or not Obama will beat McCain in November, this article proves nothing. Still, "useless" is a strong word. I believe there are very few things in this life that are useless. Indeed the great Samuel Johnson wrote that "To a poet nothing is useless." And perhaps that applies to everything besides poetry as well.
I never claimed to take into account how Republicans seem to sometimes do better in certain states (but even that changes over the years and depends on the Republican and Democratic candidates who are running). And I'll be the first to admit that in some ways this was purely a whimsical blog. But there are useful lessons here. No Democratic or Republican in U.S. history has won the presidency in November without winning the Ohio primary. Obama did not win it this year. Of course that's not a flawless indicator. Perhaps it proves nothing. But it not useless to consider.
Where I very much disagree with you is when you say that "close to 100% of the dems will vote for the dem in the general election." You think so? Perhaps you're too young to remember 1980, when Ted Kennedy supporters refused to rally around President Jimmy Carter in November and handed the election to the Republican candidate. And then there's the infamous election of 2000. Al Gore lost Florida by a miniscule number of votes compared to the number of votes disgruntled Florida Democrats gave to third party candidate Ralph Nader - and thus the Republican Bush won. Even the very first Republican President of the United States, the great Abraham Lincoln, only won the 1860 election because the Democratic Party split and refused to rally around one candidate. And now here we are in 2008 and I am deluged with messages daily from rabid Clinton supporters who say they'll never vote for Obama and equally rapid Obama supporters who say they'll never vote for Clinton. Sure, these folks may comprise a minority of the Democratic electorate - but not as small a percentage as you make it sound. I guarantee you they're enough to make a difference. Al Gore lost Florida by fewer than 600 votes, while 97,000 Floridians (including many Democrats and, I daresay, few or no Republicans) cast their votes for Nader. "Close to 100%" or not, this is a perfect example of why party unity and a proven ability to score big in the states with the most electoral votes, though not the only important consideration in choosing a candidate (or ticket), are still crucial (and not at all useless) to consider.
Reply to this
One more point I'd like to make:
You say, "look at total numbers of people who voted in democratic primaries vs republican." But this too means little. Far fewer Republicans than Democrats voted in the Ohio primary, because they largely felt their votes would matter. The same was true in 2004. Far more Dems than Reps voted in the primary - but then the Republican Bush won the state of Ohio in November. And in 1992 I voted Dem in the primary, but when my candidate didn't win the nomination, I voted for third party candidate Ross Perot in November. I guess that only shows that I wasn't one of your "close to 100%"...
Reply to this
Agree with McHoffa....useless. Clinton will unite the right and Obama will gain more from them as well as independents.
Reply to this
Thanks for visiting my blog, Bears fan. Apparently you left this comment on Digg before I'd finished posting my response to McHoffa. So I will refer you above.
It's not useless, for the reasons I stated there, and more. Even fantasies are not useless, my friend.
It was also useful in that it brought several new people to my blog.
Though we may differ somewhat, I'm still quite pleased to meet both of you. I thank both of you (as well as my dear friend Smith) for putting some bite into this discussion and livening it up. I needed a bit of heating up after digging my car out this morning.
Reply to this
LOL. Go JC!!!
Reply to this
No matter what all the numbers are I still think (as does Bill Clinton, who is not a slob as far as winning elections go) that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a sure win for the Democrats. But who is listening to Bill Clinton? He was the most popular president we have had in ages and even during the impeachment crisis his popularity was about 70% while Bush is now about 30%. Just wait and see. It has to be a Dream Ticket or else. Listen to the media and you get nowhere.
Reply to this
Intern cavortin' versus Halliburton - Bill trumps Bush any day.
Didn't we revolt from England to get out from under a George?
Reply to this