Nov. 5: Late Poll Gains for Obama Leave Romney With Longer Odds By NATE SILVER
Mitt Romney has always had difficulty drawing a winning Electoral College hand. Even during his best period of polling, in the week or two after the first presidential debate in Denver, he never quite pulled ahead in the polling averages in Ohio and other states that would allow him to secure 270 electoral votes.
But the most recent set of polls suggest another problem for Mr. Romney, whose momentum in the polls stalled out in mid-October. Instead, it is President Obama who is making gains.
President Obama: 313 -- 90.0% chance of winning willard romney: 225 --- 09.1% chance of winning
I was so excited to watch Mo's "documentary" on the electoral college only to find that it wasn't about the electoral college at all. Instead, it was a blatant, in your face, "documentary" about Mo's love of Democrats and an opportunity to bash Republicans. In the past I have enjoyed his segments on Sunday Morning, but have now lost all respect for his work. Are there no professionals left in this field who understand that the creed of journalism is to only report the facts and not interject bias into a story? It was extremely disappointing and very painful to watch. I expected more - both from Mo as well as from PBS.
The National Popular Vote is a huge mistake. First, it invites some states to conspire to beat other states in the Electoral College count. Is that how we want our states to relate to each other? Worse, its totally unconstitutional. Art 1, sec 10 - "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation ..." or, "enter into any agreement or compact with another state ... without the consent of Congress" We fought a Civil War over this. The people behind this idea profit from the contributions they get, but their "reform" will never happen. 1st Congress won't consent. 2d the Supreme Court will kill it. William J. Kelleher,PhD Twitter: wjkno1Blog: Internet Voting for All
While I enjoyed, as I usually do, your piece about the electoral college, I didn't appreciate your parting words, in which you said "one man, one vote". I found it very insensitive and a rare misstep by the CBS Sunday Morning team. Please clarify your intention behind this remark that so grossly disregards women and our still relevant battle for equal rights.
The segment on electoral college is very timely and brilliantly done with a perceptive age group, except that the word is not pronounced correctly. The word electoral is accented not on the third syllable e-lec-TOR-al but on the second e-LEC-tor-al. Thank you for the nice program.
What's with you guys ? I didn't hear any mention of `proportional representation' as an alternative to what you have. Many European states and some others (e.g. New Zealand) have already moved to a system which guarantees that EVERYONE WHO GOT SOME VOTES gets a proportioal representation in government. In Canada, we have a worse problem than you because here it's the party that gets the largest number of votes who wins. In our country, therefore, it's not unusual for someone who gets less than 40 % of the vote to become Prime Minister. unfortunately, Canadians are too stupid to change it but you guys might, if you'd take the trouble to consider it.
Senator Birch Bayh tried to abolish the E. C. in the 70`s. He came close,and he talked about this endeavor while speaking in his home state of Indiana in 2008.
Mr. Bayh still has the information our country needs to hear," Abolish The Electoral College "
The Electoral College is a brilliant way to elect the President, making sure that small states are not irrelevant. National popular votes sounds good, but when high population cities can elect the President with small states being ignored, it isn't a good thing. Our problem with the electoral college, is that we are ignorant about how it works and we don't teach our kids about it. States rights are important, and the Electoral College preserves them.
Although this may come as a surprise, those who gathered in Philadelphia in May of 1787 were not great fans of democracy. Madison in his thoughtful undertaking was concerned that prior democracies had self destructed because of the transient whims of a majority could go extreme. They sought to craft a central government that was responsive to the people from whom the power to govern was delegated, but in a muted, constrained way. They appeared to have a healthy skepticism of power, even/especially power given to a transient majority. At every opportunity they set barriers to the exercise of federal powers, slowing, fracturing and distributing and even denying it. The intent was for the people to be heard, but in a delayed and muted way with the leveling effect of time built in. We are a democratic republic, not a democracy. The expression "Better one tyrant 2000 miles away than 2000 tyrants one mile away" did not come from a Mel Gibson movie but from the taverns of Philadelphia at the end of the 18th century.
It is hoped as the electoral college discussion unfolds that a COMPLETE discussion is had. No modifications will or should take place that decreases individual state voice in the process....which is skewed and enhanced for smaller population states. I.E. as a hoosier my vote counts more than a New Yorker's in the process and a South Dakota voter more than me. More states benefit from a greater voice via the electoral college than have to vote for reform. Thus, no reform without cutting their own influence. Also, how and how long will it take for disputed elections to be decided. Under the current constitutional process (even though it was usurped by the Supreme Court with the consent of a cowardly congress in 2000) by means of which disputes can be resolved so a President is chosen. Of course the process has been bi-passed before. In 1841 John Tyler should have become Acting President and the electoral college reconvened to pick a new President when Harrison died. Instead he seized the office to insure Whig power. The other current move that has been adopted by some states is proportional division of state electors based on popular vote in districts in the state instead of winner take all. This is a change already in force in a few states.IF YOU ARE GOING TO OPEN THIS CONFUSING AND FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF FEDERALISM PLEASE DO IT FROM A STANCE OF INFORMING AND NOT ADVOCATING. If you wish to know how the 2000 dispute could have been resolved entirely by congress get in touch with me and I will explain it to you. I taught American Government for over 30 years.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
By NATE SILVER
Mitt Romney has always had difficulty drawing a winning Electoral College hand. Even during his best period of polling, in the week or two after the first presidential debate in Denver, he never quite pulled ahead in the polling averages in Ohio and other states that would allow him to secure 270 electoral votes.
But the most recent set of polls suggest another problem for Mr. Romney, whose momentum in the polls stalled out in mid-October. Instead, it is President Obama who is making gains.
President Obama: 313 -- 90.0% chance of winning
willard romney: 225 --- 09.1% chance of winning
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
William J. Kelleher,PhD Twitter: wjkno1Blog: Internet Voting for All
While I enjoyed, as I usually do, your piece about the electoral college, I didn't appreciate your parting words, in which you said "one man, one vote". I found it very insensitive and a rare misstep by the CBS Sunday Morning team. Please clarify your intention behind this remark that so grossly disregards women and our still relevant battle for equal rights.
Thank you for the nice program.
Mr. Bayh still has the information our country needs to hear," Abolish The Electoral College "
I want MY voice heard. The electoral college takes that away.