 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 Obama Keeps On WinningPosted on Nov 9, 2008
Two states, Nebraska and Maine, have rules that call for splitting their electoral votes by congressional district. Now, for the first time in the modern era, one has done so. Barack Obama has won one of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, according to the Omaha World-Herald. (Maine’s four votes went to Obama on Election Day.) The president-elect’s total now stands at 365.
The map below will be slow to update:
Advertisement Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Still Doing God’s Work on Wall Street
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
By smendler, November 10, 2008 at 7:30 pm #
Personally, I think the Electoral College would be more (samll d) democratic if all states followed the example of Nebraska and Maine - it would be very interesting to know how the race would have ended up if the Electoral College votes had been calculated that way.
Candidates would then have to go after *each and every* EC vote - the dynamics of a Presidential race would change dramatically, as all candidates would have to pay attention to rural and urban areas alike, and couldn’t rely on just carrying large cities to get all of a state’s EC votes. It also makes it more conceivable that a minor party could score some votes in the EC. (As a Green, I must admit I like that idea.)
There is a movement to remove the Electoral College completely, of course, but that would require a Constitutional amendment and probably not be easy to do. This change would be made on a state-by-state basis, and should be easier to accomplish.
You might recall that the Republicans tried to do this in California - but resisted doing it in Texas. I think the principle should be applied in a nonpartisan manner.
Report thisBy susan, November 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The state-by-state movement to enact the National Popular Vote bill would make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Report thisBy cyrena, November 9, 2008 at 10:47 pm #
Pretty cool…eh? I think this is a great idea.
You’re right GrammaConcept…one for every day of the year now.
I love it!
Report thisBy GrammaConcept, November 9, 2008 at 9:37 pm #
One for every day of the year…
Report thisawwww…..