Obama breaks Nebraska

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ebraska_electoral_vote

Obama wins 1 of Nebraska's electoral votes

OMAHA, Neb. ? President-elect Barack Obama has won one of Nebraska's electoral votes, making history in a state that has never split its electoral votes.

After all remaining ballots were counted Friday, Obama emerged with a 3,325-vote lead over Republican John McCain in unofficial results in the 2nd Congressional District. The district covers Douglas County, which includes Omaha, and portions of adjacent Sarpy County.

Nebraska, with five votes, and Maine are the only states that divide their electoral votes by congressional district.

Obama now has 365 electoral votes to McCain's 162.

Missouri, with 11 electoral votes, is still too close to call. Election officials there have until Tuesday to finish counting.



A quick search showed Nebraska hasn't gone Dem since at least 1964.
One electoral vote doesn't mean much now, but the inroads into the Republican base continue.
Seems like Howard Deans 50 state strategy is paying off.

 

[Feanor727]

This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

 

[dyna]

He should buy a vacation house there.

 

[Lemon law]

Reading the thread title induced a sense of panic, oh the horror, what did Barack break or get accused of breaking this time? So its with a sense of relief that I read Obama's only sin was to get less than a fair share of Nebraska electoral votes. Its kinda trivial at any rate, just another loving spoonful of cake icing.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

Because then states do not get fair representation. Remember that how many electoral votes each states has is based on how many house reps there are combined with senators. If you go directly with popular vote, then the state's themselves lose fair representation and we kill the Great Compromise.

 

[nakedfrog]

Finally, I was wondering how that was going to turn out. I figured there was a pretty good chance he'd take it.

 

[Feanor727]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

As much as the individual states wish to allow?

I think you're mistaking a comment for an endorsement...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Feanor727

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

As much as the individual states wish to allow?

I think you're mistaking a comment for an endorsement...

My mistake.

 

[Feanor727]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

Because then states do not get fair representation. Remember that how many electoral votes each states has is based on how many house reps there are combined with state reps. If you go directly with popular vote, then the state's themselves lose fair representation and we kill the Great Compromise.

Not to be a prick, but the number of electors is determined by the state's representation in congress -- one elector for each senator / representative.

 

[Dari]

Doesn't Warren Buffet live in that area? Damn, that guy has pull.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

Because then states do not get fair representation. Remember that how many electoral votes each states has is based on how many house reps there are combined with state reps. If you go directly with popular vote, then the state's themselves lose fair representation and we kill the Great Compromise.

The results would not be so drastic I think. Only twice in 44 presidential elections has the winner of the electoral college not also won the popular vote.*

*not counting 2000

 

[ElFenix]

damnit now i can't get my 375

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Feanor727
Not to be a prick, but the number of electors is determined by the state's representation in congress -- one elector for each senator / representative.

Thats exactly what I said.

A popular vote would only represent representatives (minus senators).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Feanor727
This is just further evidence of the rural/urban divide widening. If all states split their votes, we'd see much more of this.

How much splitting are we talking about here?
Why not just go with the popular vote if we are going to do this..

Because then states do not get fair representation. Remember that how many electoral votes each states has is based on how many house reps there are combined with senators. If you go directly with popular vote, then the state's themselves lose fair representation and we kill the Great Compromise.

States don't get fair representation now, or anywhere close to it. California gets 1 elector per every 600,000 citizens in the state. Alaska gets 1 elector per every 200,000 residents. That means the will of the average Alaskan citizen is represented three times as much as the average Californian.

Anyways, the real argument is urban vs. rural, not big state vs. little state and so it doesn't have much to do with the great compromise. The real fear is that candidates will campaign exclusively in big cities and ignore the rest of the country. Considering the percentage of the population that lives in urban areas, (nearly 80%) with the percentage of the population that lives in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, and you realize that a popular vote system would be far more democratic.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
States don't get fair representation now, or anywhere close to it. California gets 1 elector per every 600,000 citizens in the state. Alaska gets 1 elector per every 200,000 residents. That means the will of the average Alaskan citizen is represented three times as much as the average Californian.

That's the point. A state is a single entity with borders, with its own government, regardless of how many people are in it.

You don't want a state as large as California dictating the rest of the country, just as much as you don't want a state as small as Rhode Island dictating the rest of the country. You have to compromise.

you realize that a popular vote system would be far more democratic.

You are 100% correct. But we're a Republic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
States don't get fair representation now, or anywhere close to it. California gets 1 elector per every 600,000 citizens in the state. Alaska gets 1 elector per every 200,000 residents. That means the will of the average Alaskan citizen is represented three times as much as the average Californian.

That's the point. A state is a single entity with borders, with its own government, regardless of how many people are in it.

You don't want a state as large as California dictating the rest of the country, just as much as you don't want a state as small as Rhode Island dictating the rest of the country. You have to compromise.

you realize that a popular vote system would be far more democratic.

You are 100% correct. But we're a Republic.

In our current system we have about 5 states, the swing states, that dictate to the rest of the country. With a popular vote system we would still have a minority of areas that would dictate, but it would be a far far larger minority. You'll have to explain to me how ignoring 45 of the 50 states (give or take) is some sort of compromise.

We are a democratic republic, but our country being a republic has nothing to do with how we elect our chief executive. If you said it was a statement to our federalism I guess I could give you that, but it still doesn't matter as it can be modified to a popular vote system within the federal constitution, and frankly the current system is, quite simply, poor.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
States don't get fair representation now, or anywhere close to it. California gets 1 elector per every 600,000 citizens in the state. Alaska gets 1 elector per every 200,000 residents. That means the will of the average Alaskan citizen is represented three times as much as the average Californian.

That's the point. A state is a single entity with borders, with its own government, regardless of how many people are in it.

You don't want a state as large as California dictating the rest of the country, just as much as you don't want a state as small as Rhode Island dictating the rest of the country. You have to compromise.

you realize that a popular vote system would be far more democratic.

You are 100% correct. But we're a Republic.

In our current system we have about 5 states, the swing states, that dictate to the rest of the country. With a popular vote system we would still have a minority of areas that would dictate, but it would be a far far larger minority. You'll have to explain to me how ignoring 45 of the 50 states (give or take) is some sort of compromise.

We are a democratic republic, but our country being a republic has nothing to do with how we elect our chief executive. If you said it was a statement to our federalism I guess I could give you that, but it still doesn't matter as it can be modified to a popular vote system within the federal constitution, and frankly the current system is, quite simply, poor.

I would say that swing states tend to change over time, while major population centers do not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Reading the thread title induced a sense of panic, oh the horror, what did Barack break or get accused of breaking this time? So its with a sense of relief that I read Obama's only sin was to get less than a fair share of Nebraska electoral votes. Its kinda trivial at any rate, just another loving spoonful of cake icing.

Look at it from the other side, LL, and put it into context. If Dems can pull away one of Nebraska's electoral votes, it means that repubs' usual red state strategy is shot in the ass. Combine that with Dem presidential victories in Virginia, N Carolina, Indiana, Colorado and an even broader swing in congress to understand why repubs are in panic mode...

Dems have essentially broken the whole swing state fight wide open, making repubs defend what has traditionally been theirs gratis...

And threaten to put the wood to 'em in even more locales in 2010 and 2012...

Hell, Dems may pick up another Senate seat in Georgia... even Alaska, home of The Sarah!...

 

[MadRat]

I'm in Nebraska and can witness to the fact that Obama did nothing to break Nebraska. He did win over the lightly enlightened city folk in the Omaha metropolitan as opposed to the largely ignorant rural folk that interbreed in the surrounding areas. The part that I get a kick out of is that the Omaha metro is largely a conservative christian (if not majority catholic) cross section and Obama won that even with the priests doing their best to politic for McCain. The priests were toting some nonsense about five non-negotiables which McCain also just happened to violate equally.


-------------------------------------
YHPM

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy