Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

The Poblano Effect: Obama Could Score Huge Electoral Victory over McCain

By Josh Kalven, Progress Illinois. Posted May 17, 2008.


If the huge African-American turnout numbers Obama received in the primaries occurs on Nov. 5, Obama could win 350 electoral votes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

During an April 25 conference call to unveil the Obama campaign's 50-state voter registration drive, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand sounded genuinely exasperated as he tried to steer reporters to the topic at hand.

Despite his best efforts, those on the call didn't request any further details about the effort. No one posed questions about the drive's goals or how the campaign thinks it could affect Obama's general election prospects. Instead, they brought up the latest distractions: What does the campaign make of Jeremiah Wright's new comments? Are advisers worried that Obama has a problem attracting working-class white voters? And so on.

The media's lack of interest is hardly surprising. While voter registration drives are invaluable, they're also dry and tedious -- not that exciting to participate in or to write about.

But some new data indicates that, come November 5, we may find ourselves looking back at this year's intensive voter mobilization efforts as what put Obama -- and down-ballot Democrats nationwide -- over the top.

The Poblano Model

This new data was generated by the anonymous 30-year-old author of the website FiveThirtyEight.com. A statistician and analyst, "Poblano" (who asked that his real name be kept private for professional reasons) has developed a sophisticated regression model that uses state-by-state polling data to assess possible general election outcomes in individual states.

"We weight the average based on the reliability of the pollster," Poblano told me. "The polls that have a better track record are obviously going to be emphasized more heavily. We look at sample size. We look at how recent the poll was. We also skew various demographic factors as well."

In the Frequently Asked Questions section of his site, Poblano lists the demographic variables that his model takes into account in each state. Included are John Kerry's 2004 performance, the candidates' respective fundraising efforts, and other factors such as income, race, religion, age, and education level.

Using the resulting baseline averages, Poblano runs simulations -- 10,000 at a time -- to determine the probability of either Obama or Hillary Clinton beating John McCain in the fall.

"The simulation takes the polls we have now and recognizes that this far out from the election there are a lot of uncertainties," Poblano explained. "There was a point in time [in 1984] at which Walter Mondale led Ronald Reagan by 17 points or something. So we look at how much polls move over time, plus the margin of error in each poll, plus the fact that polls are never as good as they claim to be And we just simulate around that."

Poblano's simulation engine has produced some fascinating results. According to his current data, the model predicts that Clinton would win four states against McCain that Obama is favored to lose (FL, AR, WV, OH). Meanwhile, Obama wins eight states where Clinton would likely fail (MI, WI, IA, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR).

Using his simulation engine, Poblano went way against the grain last Monday, predicting that Obama would win the North Carolina primary by 17 points (most expected him to win by a single-digit margin). The following day, Obama took the state by 14.

Poblano's Indiana projection was even more spot on. He predicted a 51-49 Clinton victory. And sure enough, that's what happened.

Later in the week, pollster Mark Blumenthal devoted his National Journal column to the "Poblano Model," noting that it had outperformed five major national polling operations in predicting the results of Tuesday's primaries.


Increasing African-American Turnout


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, 50 state strategy

Josh Kalven is editor of Progress Illinois and a former deputy editorial director at Media Matters for America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The pro-pure-causcasian racism factor may not favor half-caucasians like Barack Obama.
Posted by: aouie01 on May 17, 2008 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The models do not factor the possibility of huge numbers of people (who may be registered as Republicans or will be by 05-Nov-2008) who are pro-pure-caucasians contributing to significant losses in electoral votes for Barack Obama.
Just thought I would throw in a plausible hype likely based on racist underlying factors to stymy another plausible hype likely based on racist underlying factors.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A blow-out? Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
» Don't pander to racism. Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
Oh, spare us from the media protection clauses.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 17, 2008 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The media's lack of interest is hardly surprising. While voter registration drives are invaluable, they're also dry and tedious -- not that exciting to participate in or to write about."

Or, maybe the reporter's bosses told them to focus on Wright and ignore everything else?

That's a far more likely explanation than the quoted twaddle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama winning,really ?
Posted by: compu on May 17, 2008 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please google Beth Reinhard from
the miami herald,what really happen
in Miami in 2000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...The plot, Thickens...
Posted by: dave1616 on May 17, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... please see... www.discussrace.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very Interesting Results
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on May 17, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps these results explain why we are hearing so much about voter ID cards and voter fraud.

Particularly in the upcoming election it is important to Republicans to keep minorities from being allowed to vote. On election day we can expect to see quite a lot of problems at the voting sites with high minority concentrations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the Dems could lose
Posted by: bbfmail on May 17, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jewish World Review May 6, 2008 /

Why the Dems could lose

By Cokie and Steve Roberts

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

Democrats seem intent on nominating Barack Obama, in the face of mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November. And they only have themselves to blame.

First, it was designed to anoint a nominee by early February, far too early in the process. The result: Obama built up an insurmountable lead at a time when he was still largely unblemished, untested and unscrutinized. The past six weeks have brought tougher media coverage, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's tapes, the candidate's ill-considered comments about "bitter" voters and a wave of second thoughts among key groups like union members and white Catholics.

Second, the nominating system was completely incapable of reflecting these shifts. Not only were few states remaining on the calendar, the rules of proportional representation made it almost impossible for Clinton to catch up.

Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state's ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.

How can that outcome possibly be fair? How can it possibly benefit the party?

Wait, it gets worse. Obama built up sizable margins in small states that Clinton was foolish enough to concede. His delegate advantage in Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana — three states that will never vote Democratic — was a total of 38. By contrast, Clinton handily won three large swing states — Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. And yet, because of party rules, her combined marginal gain amounted to 28 delegates.

How can it make sense for Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana to have a bigger impact on choosing the Democratic nominee than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio? Add in the exclusion of Florida and Michigan, two crucial states that favor Clinton, and there's only one word for the Democrats' system: crazy. And Republicans are gleeful.

The Associated Press-Ipsos survey gives Clinton a 50 percent to 41 percent edge over McCain, while Obama ties his Republican rival. As GOP pollster Steve Lombardo told the AP: "This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can't seem to get his footing back."

One of those strategists, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, added that Obama "is by any definition very liberal, to the left of Hillary Clinton, in a center-right country. That is very, very helpful to us." Already Republican candidates in North Carolina and Louisiana are running ads linking Democrats to Obama and his "very liberal" policies. And that's only the first trickle in a tidal wave to come.

The election map, however, has been starkly static during the Bush years, with only three small states switching sides between 2000 and 2004. Winning Ohio with Clinton is a safer bet for Democrats than capturing Colorado and Virginia with Obama.

So why don't Democratic leaders and superdelegates face these facts and shift to Clinton? One reason is race. It's true, as Obama says, that being black in America has hardly been a political asset, given the fact that he's the only African-American in the U.S. Senate.

But at this time, in this party, being black is an enormous asset.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Cokie, eh? Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
» This article avoids reality. Posted by: DuChamp Fitz
» RE: Why the Dems could lose Posted by: MisterWu
» RE: Why the Dems could lose Posted by: skydog
Pollyanna journalism
Posted by: box cutter, daisy cutter on May 17, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A reassuring article, cause for optimism, right? Not so fast. If you're going to write about the effects of changes in turnout for the pro-Obama groups, thoroughness dictates you at least mention the possible effects of either a) decreases in turnout among those groups (admittedly unlikely) or b) small increases in the turnout of a much larger group which consistently polls pro McCain (White Anglos). The latter scenario isn't out of the question; people may be extra motivated to keep that Black Hussein Osama fellow's hands off our White House.
Yes, I understand the article focuses where it does because it's an exhortation to register (Black, Latino and young) voters. But wouldn't registration be even more urgent for Democrats if they knew the consequences of increased Republican registration?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article totally disregards how Obama has alienated voters
Posted by: BayAreaVoter on May 17, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know Donna Brazile was referring to this model when she said the party doesn't need blue collar workers or the millions of women who have been alienated this year but without them these numbers don't hold up. Say hello to 1972 again when McCain wins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hilary has alienated voters, not Obama Posted by: Taurannasaurus
Electronic voting could effect outcome in 2008..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 17, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What worries me are the 14 states which still have electronic voting and no paper trail for any form of reliable recount..

That is a huge threat to our Republic and could easily be used to steal this election no matter how the actual voting turns out...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain has much stronger ties to Latinos and is doing more outreach among them
Posted by: Rune on May 17, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am dubious of the assumption that Obama has some sort of advantage over McCain when it comes to courting the Latino vote -- which is potentially triple the size of the black vote -- simply because Obama is a Democrat. McCain comes from a heavily latino state where he has had to appeal to them and be known by latinos in the Southwest for a long time. For the past several months, everything I have been reading about this matter gives an edge to McCain, who is focusing on latino voters, over Obama who is focusing on trying to register a bunch of voters who have no history of loyalty to candidates or parties. This San Francisco Chronicle article gives a taste of what is going on in this dynamic.

It could well be that latino voters will turn out in much larger numbers than usual, but I would not count on them breaking 60-40 for Obama, as Poblano does. Reverse those numbers and you have a much different dynamic. And given the tension and distrust among many latinos when it comes to blacks in the U.S., it seems to me the odds of McCain pulling the majority of latinos are better than even.

What is Obama doing to connect with latinos on an emotional level and as a loosely identifiable social group (though certainly not a monolithic group)? I have not seen any targeted appeal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why so many cowering Clinton Dems?
Posted by: DuChamp Fitz on May 17, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton's continuation of her candidacy, as well as the vehemence of her supporters, seems based solely on her "superior" electability, i.e. the fear that America is too racist to elect a Black president. While I don't have any illusions that we live in a post-racial society, I've been raised to believe that we Democrats exist to FIGHT FOR justice, not run and hide behind an injust status quo. There will, no doubt, be great resistance to Obama's paradigm-shifting candidacy, and probably more national trauma before all is said and done, but my question is, Why are some of us so freaking scared of a fight where we'll clearly have the moral high ground? And who, in truth, has the lower opinion of the American people and their ability to overcome generations of brainwashing about racial superiority/inferiority? Get on board the Justice Train, Clinton Democrats! There's room for everyone and there's nothing to fear, but fear itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Caucus Caper
Posted by: Jersey Devil on May 17, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately Obama's lead in delegates is mostly from state caucuses and NOT representative of what a state-wide primary would indicate. It is easy to influence small groups as Obama's workers did in the caucus states and the voting public in those states have minds and intentions of their own. Simply put, winning caucuses is not the same as winning primary elections. Remember that in November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: (rolling eyes) Posted by: westomoon
» Scratch the surface of your facts Posted by: valleyforge
What Obama's team realizes
Posted by: hurricane hugo on May 17, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that the line isn't race (or gender) this time - it's age. He's going to take a HUGE percentage of the under-40 vote. Bump up that turnout across the country, and the racist vote isn't going to matter.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It could happen....unless
Posted by: Thetorganization on May 17, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the same fishy scenario happens again when millions of black votes ended up getting thrown out like they did during the 2004 and 2000 elections.

And after those incidents, who would put it past anyone that this would happen again? I certainly wouldn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The key to an Obama victory in November is Bill Clinton.
Posted by: HughScott on May 17, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assuming that Senator Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he would slam-dunk the November election IF Bill Clinton swallowed his pride and campaigned for Barack as hard as he did for Hillary.

But them, IF bumblebees had bigger wings, they wouldn't bump their butts so hard on landing.

A McCain White House, I'm afraid, is in the works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bobby Decker AKA THE ARTIST FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PURPLERAIN MAN
Posted by: Bobby Decker on May 17, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HOWARD DEAN SPOKE OF THE POOR CRACKERS IN THE GREY PRIMMER PICK UP AND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG DECAL......WAKE THE FUCK UP....A LOT OF THESE
REDNECKS IS RICH .......DRIVING $50.000 PICKUPS
AND LIVING IN $200.000 - $300.000 HOUSES
GOD DAMM THERE EVERY WERE I,VE BEEN HERE IN THE SOUTH EVEN WAY THE HELL OUT IN THE STICKS WERE I LIVE
THE KINDA PLACE WERE THE ONLY GOOD JOB IN TOWNS THE POST OFFICE...... THEY,LL ALL BE
DRIVING THERE HAPPY ASS,S AROUND IN THERE HUMMERS IN BUMM FUCK KENTUCKY.....I DREAD HAVING TO WATCH GEORGE " GUMP " BUSH GLOATING
OVER HIS PARTY RETAINING THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN
HIS BASE {CLOSET CRACKERS} DELIVER THE WHITE HOUSE TO GRANPA SIMPSON !........THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE IF THE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANT WIN THIS ONE......MAYBE THEY CAN JUST KEEP SITTING AROUND JERKING OFF HOPEING THEY
CAN RUN AGAINST TOM DELAY OR NEUWT GINGRICH IN 2012 OR 2016 0R 20?? !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Can Win
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 17, 2008 7:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, think Obama can win. He has the capacity to energize voters, and not just African Americans. Youth and well educated people generally like him, and he's engaging. The more you see of him, the more you like him. McCain, on the other hand, doesn't generate much enthusiasm even within his own party. Obama would destroy him in debates. And as more and more adverse consequences of Bush's policies drag the nation down, the Bush wannabe will look worse and worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama Can Win Posted by: valleyforge
40%? Get real.
Posted by: valleyforge on May 17, 2008 10:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, Obama wins if black turnout increases 40% and the youth vote increases 50%. Let's see what that would mean. In 2004, 60% of blacks voted, compared to 67% of whites. That was the highest since at least 1972. Now increase that by a factor of 40% and you get 84% turnout by blacks. Uh, sorry, not gonna happen. If blacks reach the same turnout as whites, and if we optimistically assume that increases over 2004 to a new record of 70%, then black turnout would be up 17% (or 12% relative to whites). The youth vote? 47% in 2004. Increase that by 50% and you get 70% turnout in 2008. That compares with 73% turnout by seniors. Uh, again, sorry, but that will never happen. Every 4 years there's a huge deal about registering young voters and every 4 years they have an extremely low relative turnout. If youth turnout increases, count on overall turnout increasing by about as much, thus diluting any relative effect of the youth vote. Latinos? 47% in 2004 as well. Remember that's 47% of eligible (legal) voters. This is where Voter ID laws could have the biggest effect at depressing relative turnout if eligibility was not as closely monitored in 2004. In any case, a 50% increase in Latinos is as absurd as the case for blacks and youth. It's not like we're talking about some tiny voting bloc that hardly voted in 2004. There were tens of millions each of black, youth, and Latino voters. Expanding any of those pools relative to the overall population is going to be measured in single digits, not 20-50%. The real effect of the black vote in 2008 will be to give Obama an even bigger margin than they gave Kerry (88% versus 80%). Same for youth, but probably not for Latinos. Bigger margins will help in Michigan, PA, and Wisconsin, but seem to already be accounted for in Poblano's baseline. Now you know why reporters yawn at voter registration drives. Every party does it in every election. They just don't expect media kudos for doing so. The Obama campaign seeks to make a virtue out of necessity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

better hope he wins
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on May 18, 2008 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whatever the scenario for obama winning is, we darn well better hope obama wins. if the book, six degrees, is any where near accurate, we've got about seven years left to start doing things to turn climate change around or its pretty much over in the long run no matter what we do after that. we can't lose even 4 years to a do-nothing mcsame presidency. if we lose 8 years to him, that's it -- dead planet walking. read the book -- 6 degrees. it's so dense you have to almost wade through it. that's a shame because if you do get through it, you'll understand what i'm saying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Quibbles With Poblano's Thesis
Posted by: wilsonkolb on May 18, 2008 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama is nominated, I think there will be an explosion in black turnout. There will be some pushback. You can expect Republican suppression squads as in earlier years, and maybe even organized efforts in some states to suppress turnout through new Voter I.D. laws. And there could be a pushback by whites, fueled by shadowy 527 groups.

Still, I do think you'll see a lot more black turnout, and that it will make the difference in a few states. Where I'd be more skeptical is with youth turnout and Latino turnout.

The youth vote has to be split between collegiate youth and non-collegiate youth. The college youth turnout increased in a major way in 2000 and 2004; in the last election, it was between 70% and 75%. Maybe that can rise to 80%, but the numbers won't be decisive.

Non-collegiate youth turnout is in the low 30s. That group is probably the single most disengaged in the entire society. They are excruciatingly hard to reach. They don't read newspapers and they don't listen to the news. Mark my words, a poll of non-collegiate youth in October will show that half of them don't know the names of the two presidential candidates.

Yet, given that collegiate turnout is pretty close to its maximum, I don't see how youth turnout is going to be greatly increased this year. It will go up somewhat, because black non-collegiate youth will find out about Obama and be more inclined to vote. But white non-collegiate youth and Hispanic non-collegiate youth? Don't count those chickens before they are hatched.

Then there is the Hispanic vote. I actually think a 60/40 split for Obama is conservative, given what the Republicans have been doing on immigration. It's true that Hispanic vs. black tensions are increasing, but I think that's swamped by the Tom Tancredo effect.

The issue, though, is the sort of passion that leads to higher turnout. I'm skeptical that a black presidential candidate will light a fire under Hispanic voters. I could be convinced by solid numbers, and maybe I glossed over them. But, for now, paint me as a skeptic.

Bottom line? I don't see these three factors adding up to 350 electoral votes. But I do see them (especially black turnout) tipping the balance in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsyvania and maybe Indiana. If that happens, it'll be sufficient to carry Obama over the top in an otherwise close race

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro McCain Turnout increase due to
Posted by: tmwright on May 19, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gay marriage. Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National Popular Vote
Posted by: mvymvy on May 20, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. Every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, 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.

The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved in legislative chambers in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]