Electoral vote changes for 2012??

[Hawaii Hiker]

There will be a census in 2010, & electoral vote allotments should be changed for some states in the 2012 presidential election.....It's probably safe to say two of the fastest growing states are Arizona & Nevada, thus both will probably see an increase in their electoral votes...California continues to grow in population, so hopefully they'll see their electoral votes increase from 55, :woohoo:

Also, some Republicans in Nebraska weren't too excited to see Obama get the one electoral vote, as they along with Maine split their electoral votes by districts won....Nebraska may change that:

"Nebraska Republicans have reacted to this development with dismay and intend to introduce legislation in 2009 to go to a winner-take-all system like 48 other states. Although technically the (unicameral) legislature is nonpartisan, de facto, the Republicans control it and also the governor's mansion, so they will probably succeed". www.electoral-vote.com

Actually, I don't have a problem if Nebraska AND hopefully Maine change it to the way it is in the other 48 states, winner take all....Remember early last year, California Republicans were trying to obtain signatures to try to get an initiative on the ballot to split that states electoral votes....Their scheme crashed & burned, & if they ever would try that stunt again, Democrats need to defeat that....Can't have CA. split its EV's, without having Texas (and other states) split their votes as well....

There's also talk about the National Popular vote Interstate Compact..I don't like the idea :banghead:
Four very blue states (Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois, & New Jersey) have agreed to it, but can't take affect until enough states join....So John Kerry would have lost these 4 aforementioned states in 2004, as though he won them all, he lost the overall popular vote???...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

All states need to be on the same page on Electoral College issues...You can't have some large state split its electoral votes while the others don't....And you can't have all blue states agreeing to some National Popular Vote while no red states agree...

Look, the electoral college isn't perfect, but I think things SHOULD BE LEFT THE WAY THEY ARE...

[TheWraith]

1. New York's expected to lose 2 congressional seats, and thus 2 EVs. nt

[kattenstoet]

4. umm, the whole point of the national population vote

is to have the winner of the popular vote win the election - so states will only switch if states with a majority of electoral votes agree - so i don't get your point - kerry would have lost the election either by EV or PV

[TheWraith]

13. Did you really mean to reply to my post?

Because if you did, what you say makes no sense.

[GreenInNC]

2. NC will be getting another

and from what I am hearing it will be an all urban district, either Charlotte or Raleigh.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. States that will almost certainly gain..

Nevada
Arizona
Utah
Idaho
Georgia
North Carolina
Texas
Colorado
South Carolina
Oregon
Washington
Tennessee
Florida
Virginia

States that will almost certainly lose...

Rhode Island
Michigan
Ohio
Connecticut
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Maryland

What sucks, is most of those are Democratic states (all were this election cycle).

[Avalon6]

6. Actually that is a good thing

The fastest growing states mean a changing electorate, which is why traditionally red states are becoming more blue (see North Carolina and even Texas)

[Drunken Irishman]

8. I agree in the long run, but it'll take time.

And I doubt it'll have much of an impact in 2012.

Luckily, of the states that are growing, Obama won 7 and lost 5. Of those 5, only Utah, Idaho & South Carolina were blowouts. Texas should shift even more in four years, though I don't think it'll be enough to fall Democratic.

Of course, if Obama is a popular president, it won't matter what happens, he'll easily win re-election in 2012.

[uberllama42]

9. Dems are moving to AZ, NV, NC, CO, FL, and VA

Which is part of how Obama won them. With more Dems in those states and a strong ground game, Democratic presidential candidates will win more votes than they lost in blue states due to reapportionment.

[regnaD kciN]

7. Will reapportionment take place in time for 2012?

Last time, of course, the first presidential election after a census was in 2004, so there were several years after the census to set up reapportionment. This time, there will only be a year or so to get everything it place, so it may not be in place until 2014.

Incidentally, one irony about the reapportionment after the last census was that, had the 2000 distribution of EVs still been in place for the 2004 election, Kerry would have been elected President.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Actually, Kerry wouldn't have.

He would have still needed two Gore states (New Mexico & Iowa) plus New Hampshire and under the old numbers, he would have won.

However, Kerry carried all of Gore's states except Iowa and New Mexico. Those states made up 12 electoral votes in 2000, while NH had 4 electoral votes in 2004 (the same as in 2000).

So had Kerry won every state he did in 2004, but in 2000, he would have lost the election 258-279. He would have done better in 2004 had there not been a change, but he still would have lost without winning Iowa & New Mexico.

Now had he won Iowa & New Mexico + NH in 2000, Kerry would have won with exactly 270 electoral votes.

Had Gore ran in 2004 and won every state he won in 2000, he would have lost 278-260 -- which is a larger loss than he received in 2000.

[dontforgetpoland]

11. The electoral college will probably not benefit us in 2012.

More southern states will likely gain EV, while NE states will likely lose EV.

It's unfortunate that the electorate college is setup to benefit smaller states with more EV compare to state's population per electoral vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

For example, NY is expected to lose 1 (maybe 2) EV although according to 2007 Census estimate the population per EV has it as 622,507 ppl/EV. While UT is expected to gain 1 EV, while it's state pop. per EV is 529,066 pop/EV.

From these pop estimate, here are my estimates:

TX +3, FL +2, GA+1, CA+1, AZ +1, SC +1, UT +1, NV +1
OH -2, NY -1, MA -1, LA -1, PA -1, MI -1, NJ -1, MO -1, IA -1, MN -1

[BearSquirrel2]

12. Pile on ...

The deeper problem with the electoral system is that sparsely populated areas get a disproportionate share of the electoral vote. With the disputed races in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia, Democrats will will have the opportunity to increase the number of representatives. This will largely favor Democrats as it will allow for more representatives in densely populated areas which typically vote Democrat.

Not only will this put the house in Democratic hands for a generation, it will also make it more difficult to elect Republicans to the White House.

It's time we fix the disproportionate voting system.

[DeepBlueDem]

14. EV's

The states that i predict will get EV gains are: FL, TX, CA, GA, VA, NC, CO
EV Losses: LA, MS, AL, NY,

For now