270 to Win!
270 is the number of electoral college votes needed to win the president of the United States. Even though most people think that the presidential election is a popular vote it is in fact an electoral college. Simply put each state, based on its population, has a certain number of electors who cast their vote for president. The number of electors is the number of senators plus the number of representatives. So every state has a minimum of two electoral votes. These electors meet to cast their votes for president 41 days after the popular election.
You might be asking yourself well why do I have to vote then? Well, the popular vote determines who a state electors will cast their vote for president for. Maine and Nebraska do something different but it’s too confusing so just forget about it for now. What this means is that who ever wins the popular vote in the state gets all of the states electoral votes. So even if the vote is 51% to 49% the winning gets all and the loser gets nothing. This is why in states that are traditional Democratic (New York and California) or Republican (Texas) votes by people of the other party don’t really count because their party’s candidate won’t win the state any way. What are important in the election are swing states, like Ohio and Florida. These are states that don’t have an overwhelming majority of voters for either party and have a large number of independent voters, so the state is up for grabs. Since there are 538 electoral college votes and only 270 votes are needed to win candidates only need a few big states to become president. So wining the majority of states is not a requirement for being president.
On the site 270toWin.com a map is shown clearly illustrating the break down of known party states and swing states. It also shows maps of past elections showing the popular vote and the electoral college vote. This is why is 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote (Of course he lost the electoral college vote because George Bush’s brother helped him steal the election in Florida but that’s besides the point). So have fun playing with the map and see the different outcomes of who will win and be president.
Last 3 posts by D WallZ
- Robotic Legs for the Lazy - Nov 11th, 2008
- Why Gay People are Still the Big Losers - Nov 6th, 2008
- McCain Thinks Western Pennsylvanians are Racist - Oct 23rd, 2008
2 posts in 2 days? It’s a new record for you. Jason and I were feeling lonely all by ourselves here.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
It is fun to play the lets get to 270 game. Unfortunately it is deadly serious. What we need to do is make the simple change and move to a direct national popular vote for President. We should make sure that the candidate who receives the most votes actually gets elected.
A national popular vote would eliminate the situation you outlined above where most of the states are safe (ex. Texas) and there are only a handful of swing states that draw all of the attention of he campaigns. A national popular vote makes winning or losing any given state irrelevant. What is important is the number of votes a candidate gets. Under this scenario a vote in California or Idaho is as valuable to a candidate as a vote in Ohio.
There is a group that is pursuing this democratic idea. They have bills in virtually every state to accomplish this goal. To find out more, visit their website: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sorry Alouette
a popular vote then tilts the power towards population centers. If a canditate won by a 70% margin In the top 10 population centers the election would be over. Therefore the opinions expressed by the americans living in Mobile, Akron, and Carson city would be drowned out by voices from L.A., NY, and Chicago. While this idea would benefit me as I live in Texas and we have 3 of those population centers, It would not be fair to those who don’t.
Good Idea though :-(
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“The number of electors is the number of senators plus the number of representatives. So every state has a minimum of two electoral votes.”
This is incorrect. Every state as two senators and at least one member of the House of Representatives. This means every state as at least three electoral votes.
October 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm