Re: STATE BY STATE ELECTION PREDICTIONS [CC]

I explain how, under the system of the Electoral College in the U.S., if you either get the 11 biggest states by elector count, or the majority of the states having 10 or more electors, you'll win the election even if your opponent gets ALL of the other states, and that, except in tight elections, the states with 9 or fewer electors are essentially irrelevant (except maybe for bragging rights.)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Presidential
• Election
• 2008
• Electoral
• College
• Captioned
• Captioning

[56dlp]

This man has a complete misunderstanding of how the electoral college works. He says that the single digit states dont matter. That is NOT true. He also says that we are voting on the electors. That also is NOT true. The elector does not get the decided who to vote for. The elector casts his vote based upon the majority votes within that state. All electoral votes are accumulated and counted. The majority winner becomes President. Also, Dan Brown was 100% correct in his prediction except for GA

[Rfc1394]

@56dlp I do understand the electoral college. My only error was misunderstanding the term "battleground."

When you vote in a U.S. Presidential election you do not vote for the candidate, you vote for the electors who are pledged for that candidate to the electoral college. Later, the members of the electoral college meet in each state where they then vote for a candidate. There have been a couple of cases where electors pledged to a specific candidate voted for someone else.

[56dlp]

@Rfc1394 We do not vote for electors pledged to a particular candidate. It is a "Winner Takes All" scenario. For example, Florida has 29 electors. After all the Florida votes have been totaled, the majority Presidential and Vice President nominees are determined. ALL 29 of Florida's electoral votes will go to those nominees....not anyone else on the ballet. They are not free to vote for whomever they want; it is a winner takes all. And of course, Dan Brown understands this.

[Rfc1394]

Yes we do vote for electors pledged to a particular candidate; we do not vote for the candidate directly. If you vote for a candidate directly, and a different candidate gets more votes, who gets elected? The one you didn't vote for. Yes, only the candidate getting the most votes for their electors gets all the electors (except in Maine and Nebraska) but the point remains: we vote for electors for president who then vote for the president, we do not vote for the president directly.

[Rfc1394]

@56dlp I do understand the Electoral College. My only mistake was misunderstanding "battleground".

We vote in Presidental elections for electors pledged to a particular candidate, not for the candidate directly. The electors in each then meet later to vote for a candidate, and they are the only ones who do vote for the candidate. More than once, pledged electors have voted for someone else.

[DarthMalak1000]

I actually feel to disagree with the single-digit states, look at the 2004 election. Out of the the top 11 populous states, Kerry won California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, while Bush won Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and North Carolina. Those top 11 were fairly even, but what won Bush the election what the single-digit states.

[Rfc1394]

If you look at what I said starting about 3 minutes into the video, if someone wins a majority of the double-digit elector states *then* the single digit states don't matter. In the Bush/Kerry election they basically split the top 11. *Now* the other states do matter, which is what I said.

[kramer824]

your awesome!

[BreachedWall]

By definition, 'battleground state' is just another name for 'swing state'. It just means it's a state where no candidate has overwhelming support. I agree that say Missouri had no significance in this election, but technically it's still a battleground state. The number of electoral votes in it is irrelevant when definining the words.

So in conclusion, I agree with your argument but I disagree with your definition of the words 'battleground state'. And dictionaries agree with me.

[saranggani78]

@56dlp exception in 2000 Barbara Lett Simmons (D-D.C.) abstained from voting for Al Gore even though she was an elector.  If the justification is strong enough electors can choose to vote or not vote.

[56dlp]

@Rfc1394 You are making it sound like the electors are pledged to a particular candidate before the voting even starts. ELECTORS HAVE NO CHOICE IN WHO THEY VOTE FOR. The electors must place their vote based upon majority rule and only electoral votes will determine who becomes the president. Also, electors ARE NOT on the ballot, so we do not VOTE FOR THEM!!! Do you get it now?? Why do you keep saying that we vote for electors? How can you vote for someone that is not even on the ballot?

[roushracing616]

dude shut up u dont know what ur talking about co. not a battle ground state go get that lazy eye fixed and ur teeth either brushed or taken out bc they look nasty and take a bath u look like a pic and maybe shave?