US electoral map predicts Obama will win
IN JUST 10 DAYS, the United States will hold its 2008 presidential election on Tuesday, November 4th.
It will be an immensely important and historic election, coming as it does as the country is mired in two foreign occupations, suffering from a diminished reputation in international affairs, and beset by spiraling financial catastrophe and onrushing economic troubles that look set to rival the Great Depression of the 1930s.
While the information technology industry might be apolitical, it's fortunes rise and fall in step with the health of the global economy, which is inextricably intertwined with that of the US, so the outcome of this US presidential election is, or should be, of somewhat more than passing interest to our readers.
Although we do have a large American audience, many of our readers are in the UK and other countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia and elsewhere literally all over the world.
Therefore, The INQUIRER offers the following primer about how US presidential elections work along with some resources for tracking the race as it winds up in these closing days.
In common with other modern "democratic" nations, the United States is not technically a democracy. With few exceptions such as initiative petitions, referendums and certain state and local tax measures, US citizens don't vote on laws directly.
Instead, the US is a republic. The voters of its 50 states elect representatives to whom they entrust their interests at local, state and federal levels.
At the national level, US voters elect legislators to serve in the two equal houses of the US Congress, which are the Senate and the House of Representatives. US voters also vote for competing slates of candidates for President and Vice President, but the US President and Vice President are not elected directly, as we will proceed to explain in some detail below.
But first, it will be helpful to say a few things about the two chambers of the US Congress.
The two wings of the US Congress are equal only in that both houses must pass legislation before it can become law. Otherwise, they have distinctly different responsibilities such as: technically, spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, though this rule is sometimes circumvented in practice; the Senate must confirm nominees to the Supreme Court, federal judiciary and presidential appointees and it must ratify treaties; and so on.
The House of Representatives is comprised of 435 members who are apportioned among the states more-or-less proportionally by population according to a census every 10 years. Congressional Representatives serve two-year terms, thus face elections every two years.
The US Constitution states that the number of Representatives "shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" of population, but if that proportion were still in effect, the House would currently have about 10,000 members. Fortunately the US Constitution allows each House member to represent more than 30,000 constituents, and that is what's transpired.
The number of Representatives grew steadily throughout the 19th century as the country expanded its frontiers and admitted more states to the union. As the House's chamber in Washington, DC became filled, the Congress set the number of Representatives at 435 in 1911, where it has remained ever since. Presently, each member of the House represents approximately 650,000 constituents.
The House is generally regarded as the people's wing of the US Congress, because all of its members must campaign for re-election every two years and, as mentioned above, it controls the US federal government purse strings.
The Senate is made up of 100 members, two from each state. Senators each serve six-year terms and one-third of their number face elections every two years in a rotating sequence.
The Senate is considered the upper house of Congress, sort of like the UK House of Lords, because each individual Senator must campaign for re-election only once every six years, and due to the Senate's responsibilities as set forth in the Constitution, just a few of which are mentioned above.
So, given this largely irrelevant background, what does all of this have to do with how the US actually elects its President and Vice President?
The answer involves something called the US Electoral College and the fact that there is not just one US presidential election but 50, one in each state, all held upon the same day.
Voters in each state vote for pairs of candidates running for President and Vice President, but what they actually choose are slates of electoral voters belonging to those candidates' political parties.
A slight detour to explain the role of the big US political parties is necessary at this point.
At present, the US has a distinctly two-party political system. The two major US political parties are the Democratic party and the Republican party. Minor political parties active in the US include the Libertarian party, the Green party, and others, but such third parties seldom can attract more than a few per cent of the popular vote in presidential elections.
The current and (thankfully) now outgoing US President, George W Bush, is a Republican.
Other Republican US Presidents in fairly recent times have included Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George HW Bush.
US Presidents who were Democrats over roughly the same period have included Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.
The Republicans' candidates for President and Vice President are Arizona Senator John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, respectively.
The Democrats' candidates for President and Vice President are Illinois Senator Barack Obama and Delaware Senator Joe Biden, respectively.
Now back to the mechanics of the Electoral College in deciding US presidential elections.
Each state has the number of presidential electors within the Electoral College equivalent to the total number of its Senators and Representatives in Congress.
In addition, the US capital area in the District of Columbia is also granted three Electoral College members, even though it is permitted only one non-voting member in the House of Representatives and no Senators.
Thus 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus three from DC, adds up to 538 members of the Electoral College.
Half of 538, plus one, equals 270. Therefore it takes at least 270 Electoral College votes to win the US presidency.
Almost all states have a winner take all policy for selecting Electoral College electors, in that the political party whose presidential election candidates win the state's popular vote get all of its Electoral College votes.
Only the relatively small states of Maine and Nebraska allow voters residing in different Congressional districts to select Electoral College members for different parties' slates of presidential election candidates.
Unlike most of the UK and the countries of Western Europe, states in the US vary greatly in population, with large concentrations of people living on the East and West coasts and vast regions of some Central and Southwestern states very lightly populated. Therefore a few states have only three electoral votes reflecting one Representative and two Senators, and some densely populated states have a lot of electoral votes.
Separate regions of the US also tend to favour one or the other of the two major political parties, too. The states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest and on the West Coast have consistently tended to vote for Democrats in recent US presidential elections, while those states in the South, Southeast, Lower Midwest, Intermountain West and Southwest have consistently tended to vote for Republicans.
Winning a US presidential election, then, doesn't require winning the most popular votes, but rather winning enough states to get at least 270 Electoral College votes. Indeed, it has happened in past elections that candidates actually won the popular vote but nevertheless lost the electoral vote.
US presidential election projections and outcomes in terms of Electoral College votes are typically visualised on a map of the United States, with Democratic states coloured in blue and Republican states coloured in red. Leading up to election day, polling results are often represented by showing the candidates' polled margins with dark colours for strong leads, pale colours for slight leads, and white or purple for toss-ups that appear too close to call.
Current US presidential Electoral College vote projection maps are available at Electoral Vote and Daily Kos as well as Five Thirty Eight.
At the time of writing, the poll projections of these electoral vote maps are all predicting victory for the Democratic party ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
"From my perspective, barring some unforeseen circumstance in the next 11 days, all that remains to be seen is the margin of victory, and whether, as these polls seem to be hinting, we're headed for a landslide," said Democratic pollster Paul Maslin at Salon yesterday.
Or as Capitol Hill Blue put it late last week, "At this point, two weeks before the election, it is difficult to see how Obama could lose. Stranger things have happened, but it is highly unlikely McCain can find a way to win, absent an October surprise or some amazingly dirty tricks that work."
The election is still 10 days away, however. John McCain, Sarah Palin and the Republican party political operatives are apparently stopping at nothing to try to win by any means. µ
See Also
Google
boss could be Obama tech guru
Obama
gets on track for gamer votes
Spammers
prefer Obama to McCain
Obama
gets Iphone App
US
presidential candidate is a pirate
Online
campaigns bedeviled by typos
Internet
changes US presidential campaign
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Well, at least the facts you quoted about our government and our forms of election are accurate, even if you are a skanky, marxist Europeon.

For you to imply that the McCain-Palin ticket has resorted to "dirty tricks" is a half-truth, in that the Obama-Biden ticket has consistently lied to the American electorate about their hard-core leftist plans once they gain the Presidency. If you think America is tough to work with now, wait until the Demoncraps think they can do whatever they want, including running roughshod over other countries. You'll be whining for the return of the relatively sane policies of the Republicans within two years.

Think of the Russian Bolsheviks.... now imagine the USA in the hands of the same kind of people... Fanantical, paranoid, capable of doing anything while spewing distorted rationalizations for their actions. Or are you one of the drooling idiots of the left who wish to remain ignorant of history in favor of ideology?
Great Writing, Egan should teach 5th grade. However, one problem. In 1972 polls showed Democratic canadate ahead by very wide margin, Hon McGovern had 30% lead, according to Polls.

At day of Election, Hon Nixon Won by 80% to mere 20%, Way Off Predictions, of ALL Pollsters.

Its Game of Mentors Now. John Mentors Sarah & Joe mentors Barak. Its experience Thing.

At Any Moment, its' Jerrytimes' Jerry May step aside & Allow Hope For Surgeon General, Same As Self, Take Throttle of Nation. My View? 
When Stocks Lose Cost & Fuel Costs' Less, Its Because Your Money is Worth More. You Get Twice for Your Dollar today, Compaared to Last Month. So Go Figure.

ANYONE Could Win, Ultee' Tom Being Number One.
Stewie Drashek
...and should should have been abolished long ago. When the U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 it probably made since for the founding fathers to create the Electoral College since the U.S. was so vast. Tallying all the citizens' votes for presidential elections in a timely manner back then was a daunting task. Today, and perhaps for the last century, it makes no sense at all to continue this disgusting and unfair practice. We Americans vote directly for all elections excepting the presidential election. On three occasions in our history the sleazy Electoral College ignored the peoples' popular vote.

The most notorious example of failure of the Electoral College occurred in 2000 when George W. Bush "won" the election against Al Gore, who actually won the popular vote. There can be no better reason to abolish the Electoral College than this.

Also, as has been proven over and over again and especially now with the sub-prime fiasco leading to the global economy being on the brink of collapse, it's time for some long overdue constitutional ammendments. Keep in mind that all elected officials in the U.S. are prostitutes. They are allowed to accept large contributions from corporations and individuals to finance their campaigns. As a result the winners have always, to varying extents, represented the corporations or wealthy elite and their massive lobbying instead of representing the people that voted them in office. This is exactly why the U.S. is in the sorry state that it is in now. And don't forget these same corrupt and/or incompetent Senators and Congressmen also comprise the Electoral College. Let me add that Democrats as well as Republicans are to blame, although it appears that the Republicans penchant for industry deregulation since Ronald Reagon was in office has been a major factor in the current crisis.

Two constitutional amendments that would greatly help restore the honesty and integrity of the U.S. electoral process (among other governmental areas) would be to abolish the Electoral College and to ban lobbying altogether. This second amendment would impose ultra severe penalties for anyone caught offering or accepting any form of compensation.

I comment on this article only to inform the many international Inq. readers that Americans are really good people, but we're stuck with a basically sound system that has some serious flaws. These flaws are easily corrected, but may never be as the same moronic chimps that are governing the U.S. would have to do it and they don't want to give up any funding or power.

I think it is fair to say that the American people really have no proper governmental representation and we are all suffering because of it. I think it's time for another tea party!
Thank you for the excellent article on US politics. I am Canadian, and though I know our own political system fairly well, it has always been confusing to learn about our brothers to the South.

We've watched their election process with as much interest as an OJ Simpson trial for quite some time now and still I wondered how their system was put together. Your article explained everything perfectly and in a nice concise fashion. Bravo! I think you should submit it to CNN because they could use some help feeding the minds of their minions by actually teaching them something about their political system. Maybe then they will actually get out and vote considering how important this election is not just to themselves, but to the rest of the world. 

Thanks again.
The biggest TECHNOLOGY story from this election is how Barack Obama disabled AVS on his donations site in order to be able to accept illegal donations (from Americans over their legal limit and from foreigners). We've already found instances where foreigners gave money to Obama.

NOBODY disables AVS for any valid reason. Every merchant has it enabled. Obama had it--but he went out of his way to disable it. Specifically because he wanted to take illegal donations.

Why won't you report this big TECHNOLOGY news story? Because you are 100% biased in favor of Barack Obama.
There are some very good sources of data based forecasts:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/today%27s%20polls

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/PollyVote/

http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml

http://election.princeton.edu/
Remember that in the event of a Electoral Vote tie the sitting Vice President has the deciding vote. Also, to trust the Polls prior to an US Election is not a wise thing to do,
an example would be the Truman- Dewy Election of 1948.
Thanks for the summary of how the US elections work. I've been a bit puzzled about it and crawling through Wikipedia gets only confusing. 

But this one summed it up pretty well. Nice work. I too hope that Obama wins, but you know, polls etc mean nothing in the end and nothing should be taken for granted.
What happens if both candidates get 269 votes (and despite the hardest efforts in "recounting" no state changes sides)? 

Wil GWB then just decide to stay a little longer? *shudder*
I think the inquirer needs to kind stick to hardware stuff, and stay out of politics, even if it is such a helpful guide.
Bradley effect anyone?
A very good article, congratulations. Given the fact that (from a non - Yank perspective), the most incompetent leader of all US presidents is leaving office, you could have made additional comment that the founding fathers forsaw the current level of available competance of US polititians and designed a system that is (usually) a logjam, with congressional and presidential vetoes cancelling each other out. In my mind, the US electoral system urgently needs reform, so that the most competant polititian (not the wealthiest) gets the job and that a system that allows the Tom DeLays of the world the exist is just not working.
A few inaccuracies, but pretty good sum up.

Gee, I wonder who the INQ supports here?

The election is not "won" by Obama by any means though it looks good for him. People change their minds at the last second. A number of states in his camp have very slim margins, and so may be in error as to their thought of affiliation.

While I'm now an Obama supporter, I supported Senator Clinton in the primaries.
The average American has less idea about how the three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) work, interact, and are elected/appointed than your average European. And the best part of the Electoral College? The small states, like Wyoming, have more representation than a state like California, even though the latter has roughly 12% of the US population. Wyoming has a population of 522,000 and 3 Electoral College votes, meaning that there is a Electoral College vote for every 174,000 people, In California's case, it's one Electoral College vote for every 664,000 people (36,553,000 residents with 55 Electoral College votes). In fact, there are 7 states plus DC that have 3 Electoral College votes each, and combined account for 24 Electoral College votes for a total population of 5,674,000 people. At that rate, California should have 155 Electoral College votes. So in the end, we can't even get a representative republic right, let alone representative democracy. Then again, the Electoral College business was created because the founders didn't like the idea of mob rule and tyranny of the majority, and also assumed that your average citizen was only good for breeding tomorrow cannon fodder... err, infantrymen. Originally, the Popular Vote, as it's called now, was barely even advisory, and the Electors in the Electoral College actually determined who was President and Vice President. It's amazing we've even made it this far without a civil war... oh wait.
...until you list the Daily Kos as a link for a projection. This is one of the most extreme and hate-filled sites on the internet, where they celebrate the death and illnesses of republicans in the forum. There are also these forums on the 'right' (Rep) as well; but the media tends to not try to legitimize them like they do with the Kos.

While many do not like the concept up the electoral map, the one huge positive is that it prevents candidates from simply campaigning in the top population cities around the country and gives some of the rural areas more of a voice (albeit a small one) .

You may know the rural areas as the more popular Obama interpretation of 'embittered people clinging to guns and religion' (I think these are the ones he wants to help and redistribute wealth to?)

I do wonder why you have to inject your own bias at the end though. It's not like both sides twist and distort the truth (?) yet you only seem to acknowledge that Republicans do it. I do find it amusing that the media hammers on Palin for her lack of experience while giving Obama, who has effectively served 2 years as a senator (I'm considering the last 2 years of running for prez not actual senatorial experience), a pass. Ironically, his own VP running mate (Biden) attacked him on this! This is a guy noone ever heard of until a convention speech 4 years ago.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9577

The Pennsylvania attorney who challenged the Democratic presidential candidate’s “natural birth” has claimed victory in his federal suit because the defendants, Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, have failed to answer the suit within the required 30 days, thereby losing by default. 

On October 21, Berg announced that Obama and the DNC “admitted” to, by way of failure of timely response to “requests for admissions,” the specific requests in the federal lawsuit. “Obama is not qualified to be president, and therefore he must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president, and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate,” Berg told AFP. 
...of the US political structure. The obvious loathing of Bush and lovefest for Obama were a but much, though. 

There are some important points that need clarification. For example, this US is a Federal Republic, as opposed to vanilla republic (like ancient Rome, for example). The Federal government is intentionally weak compared to state governments. Moreover, the Executive branch (which forms the Fed gov't along with the Legislative and Judicial branches) is, by design, the weakest the of three branches. This is incredibly important to understanding US policy and politics, and is often times misunderstood by non-US citizens (and many citizens, sadly). Now, to be precise, the President has only three powers granted to him by the Constitution. He is: 

1. Chief Executive (head of the Executive branch, i.e., Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and so on);
2. Chief Diplomat (has sole authority to negotiate on behalf of the US people, though any treaty must be ratified by the Senate);
3. and, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (this should be self-explanatory, though it should be noted that the Founding Fathers were against the idea of standing army). 

The powers of the Executive (President) are given under Article 2 of the Constitution. This is important because the powers of Congress are given under Article 1, with the implication that the Legislature is the highest authority in the Federal gov't. 

The notion I want to stress in all this, especially given the international audience here, is that, while it is certainly important who is the next President, please understand that it is far, far more important who is elected to Congress. They control the US economy (if any body can be said to do such), international treaties, trade laws, and wars. 

November 4th isn't just about who will be the next President of the United States. It's about the election of more than one hundred representatives and senators who will decide the direction of the US in these turbulent times.
About the Truman- Dewy Election of 1948.
Another thing to keep in mind is the "Bradley" factor, named after an African-American in CA that had huge pool numbers but lost the election back in the 70s, IIRC.
Good explanation. I'm a US citizen and the process still mystifies me somewhat. The biggest disappointment is that the only effective popular vote is for the representatives, house or senate. Once in place, they can use their electoral votes however they choose. They tend to stick to the popular in their state if they want to be re-elected but not always.

Now besides all this, I can't but help to mention this even though all I've seen is unsubstantiated emails (because I'm too lazy to check on the facts myself) but I've seen several compelling letters that indicate multiple Middle-Eastern ties to Obama. That, in and of itself, shouldn't mean much but with all the terrorism and radicalism from that area it makes me very weary. And to quote from the last letter I read which was from somewhere else that I can't recall now: "Beware the enemy from within."
Per the US Constitution, if no Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate achieves a majority of the Electoral votes for the particular office, then the decision passes to the House of Representatives. The sitting Vice-President, as President of the Senate, would have no official involvement. If the House can't pick a President-elect, then the Vice-President elect serves as President. The electorial votes for President and Vice-President are counted separately.

See US Consitution, Article II, Section 1, amended by Amendment 12, further amended by Amendment 20.
Anytime Magee leaves his work to others, things turn out political. Looks to me like the Inquirer won't do better than the Register after all...
Ah, and the electoral map certainly would have predicted Kerry's victory.
Well being that Palin seems to not know what her role would be if she is VP maybe someone should provide her with this url.... oh yeah maybe reading might be a requirement though and with her track record I'm not sure she would understand ;).

Funny though that a foreigner understands the US political system better then a potential VP of the US.
All of us here in the U.S.A. are screwed no matter who wins...
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence,
effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Alaska, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour', 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise'. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

4.You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public. 

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted
provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation
on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!

(LOL)
It seems my other comment didn't take. Here is a link to something I read the other day. I was surprised to find the letter posted verbatim by someone else.

Please forgive the tiny url but check it out if you're curious.

http://tiny.cc/B7Snm
@Greg
"[...]The truth is...
All of us here in the U.S.A. are screwed no matter who wins...[...]"

Well, looks like you've been watching too much Moore BS lately, because we are far from being better off here in Europe. And when I hear Obama talking about spreading wealth among people, I can tell you he's wrong because people are not happier in our socialist countries, where poverty is growing big time.
Though I'm a fan of politics, and stewed in the American system, I still appreciated this step by step build-up of the electoral college.
And then burn, baby, burn!
You shouldn't be too (anything) for too long. Where would the right get without the left? It does sound as if the republicans are getting desperate. 

I'm a switch voter. Out of the current election hopefuls, I would be happy with Duncan Hunter or Barack Obama. All the other gaffers sucked. Oh, and the republican desperados are some of the most niggardly people on earth. Not to mention: gullible as well. Too much arrogancy. Well, I'm voting a straight democratic ticket, to send a message. Unfortunately, I live in a red state.
But there's always hope. 
To all you other blokes: blah, blah, blah, oh blahdy, oh blahda.
A comment by a reader implied that US representatives and senators are the electors who vote on the presidential election, and that they vote according to the election returns if they want to keep their seats. Although the number of a state's electors is equal to the number of that state's senators and representatives, the actual persons who serve as electors are determined when one votes on Election Day. The state political parties chose slates of electors for their respective candidates, Dem., Rep., or independent. When you vote for 'McCain' or 'Obama', for example, you are actually casting a vote for a particular slate of Electors, who will later meet in the various state capitals to cast Electoral votes. The names of the actual Electors used to be displayed in the voting booths, but this practice has long been superseded by using the names of the candidates instead. The actual electors are not the same individuals who are sent to Congress from each state.
... would a candidate ever venture out of the most populated cities across America? Why bother with Idaho, Montana, Rhode Island, or the rural areas of NY or California as you just need to get the vote in the top 20-50 cities. 

And while lobbying is and can be abused, is it inherently "evil"? Greenpeace, environmental groups, clean energy, labor unions, technology groups, and countless other groups (NRA, pro-life, pro-choice, minority groups) all lobby the government. The issue is the abuse and money involved in lobbying, not the act of lobbying.

The most dangerous thing is the money involved in elections... Obama is spending over 100Mil/month (this includes well over 2Mil/day on TV advertising alone) which means candidates need to raise over a million/day which inevitably leads to influence by those giving (and more importantly helping raise) the money for the candidate.

McCain has gone the public financing route, which means what he can spend after securing the nomination of his party is capped. Obama pledged to do the same during the primaries, but reversed his decision when it was clear he could raise much more privately and rarely has been questioned on this sudden (and rather convenient) change in "principles".

I wonder if he ever thought to apply his philosophy that the ultra successful should shoulder more of the responsibility of the load (taxes) to his own campaign financing. As he is outraising his opponent well over 2:1 shouldn't he give some back to help the "poorer" candidate? Funny, I'm going to guess that he would say he shouldn't be punished for being successful, don't you? I wonder why no one in the media has ever asked him THAT question! Perhaps we should put a progressive tax on campaign fund raising?

The money to run for a federal office (president, house, senate) is what is ruining the election process - elections have become campaigns that function on media advertising and funding "political machines" (get out the vote, payment of people to register, telephone banks, etc...).
2nd comment is nonsense. Polls in 1972 showed clearly the McG was headed for defeat (24% support after convention) Pop. vote (which this idiot also has wrong) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_U.S._presidential_election
umm why don't you point out that the democrats (US socialist party) has a history of voting fraud such as signing up dead people, illegal aliens (or just aliens if they could) and so forth so saying the republicans are stopping at nothing then linking to that article is pretty slanted and a half truth. 

Why don't you stick to the tech news.. or at least your own country’s politics witch us on the other side of the pond may not understand... you could clear up why your members of government where those ass pirate wigs and costumes...eh?

why don't you stick to the tech news.. or at least your own countrys poritics witch us on the other side of the pond may not understand... you could clear up why your members of goverment where those ass pirate wiggs and costumes...eh?
"John" is *still* confused about "electoral votes" and finds viral e-mails "compelling."
I guess what I meant to say is:
we here in the USA are totally screwed... ;-)

Actually, I don't watch TV at all unless it's a movie as I am trying to keep my brain dirty, not washed. It really is time for all Americans to stand up and take back our country from the people who are currently in power...
And I have been in Europe on business before (Landstuhl Germany) and I find the people quite nice, and yes there seems to be a global problem. I especially feel bad for you all in England... But we're not far behind...
The reason we have the electoral college is so that we have a United States, instead of 30 random states. Rural places wanted heavy representation, or else they'd take their state somewhere else. And it worked. But we should fix that now, and go to popular vote. There is no good from just campaigning in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Where the rural vote in say, Nebraska is still ignored.

Also, 10,000 representatives would be fine by me, at least I'd have a better chance of making a difference. They could just VPN (tech angle) to work.

P.S. Executive power is not that weak when the house and senate are not veto proof. Also when everything is smear jobs, perception and backroom deals etc. the US president is able to project wide virtual power. Take the non-existant WMD's in Iraq as an example. Hell he basically single handedly mobilized many non-US armies. That's some power.
Gotta agree with the first comment - about the only side using dirty tricks these days are the Democrats - corrupt little b***ers through and through, or hadn't anyone bothered to pay attention to the fact that ACORN's voter fraud finally got so brazen and so widespread that they finally got raided and had their records seized.