Skip to main content

View Diary: What nobody is addressing about the Electoral Vote-rigging scheme (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've started looking at pop. vote vs. EV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think a good measure of how better run a campaign is over its opponent is to look at how many more EV's the winner got than popular vote, as a rough estimate.

    For example, George W. Bush in both his elections won roughly the same percentage of electoral votes as popular votes. This leads me to think that Bush's campaigns and his opponents' were fairly equal in effectiveness.

    Obama won about 51% of the popular vote, but 60% of the Electoral Votes. So to me, this is a good measure that Obama outmaneuvered Romney to win 9% more EVs than he should have.

    So for a rough estimate, we could say that if the Republican system of apportioning EVs were in place, we could argue that Obama's campaign strategy would account for this, enough that they could counter a 8-9% gap between EVs lost to gerrymandering.

    This is just speculation at this point, obviously.

    •  This is a good point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Obama ran a very solid campaign, both times (I hesitate to call it a great campaign - hard to shine against lesser opponents).  Back in the '08 primary, while the Hillary strategists were convinced they'd win it by big states, Obama was patiently mix/max'ing every caucus and primary to get the most possible delegates.  

      It is very alarming to look at the '12 results, and imagine what could have happened with the proposed rule changes.  But you can bet the President would have run a very different campaign then he did, so the comparison has limited utility.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site