I see Sunny’s been taking notes.

“Each state has a share of that depending on its population size.” Not actually true.

Each state’s electoral college vote is its number of Congressmen (which roughly depends on population) plus its number of Senators. Since every state however large or small has two senators this system is biassed towards small states. So on your map, the six ‘red’ states stretching from Idaho to North Dakota have the same total number of electoral votes as Illinois (20) but less than a third the population (6.5m to 20m).

This bias was intentional on the part of the Founding Fathers to persuade smaller states to join the US. Its survival, like many undemocratic absurdities of the American system (eg. the ludicrously unrepresentative but deeply revered Senate) shows what happens when you don’t change your constitution (not fundamentally anyway) for 200 years. It’s as if the UK still had the pre-1832 constituencies,rotten boroughs and all that. And we think we’re the traditionalists!

@2 – yes, but the small state bias doesn’t only favour Romney – combined population of Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, DC, Delaware and Hawaii is also about 6m and also offer up 20 electoral votes, so in this election at least the two candidates benefit roughly equally from this discrepancy…

Obviously I can’t reveal much of what I’m told or hear

?

@ Luis

Obviously I can’t reveal much of what I’m told or hear

If you’re not happy with the succulent crumbs Sunny is prepared to let drop from the big table, go somewhere else to eat!!!

Yes, I know it doesn’t work on the internet……

@4 – it’s basically meaning there is nothing in this article that republican strategists won’t already know, but it could be enlightening for those who have never been involved in an election and thus don’t know the logistics and tactics that are now standard use by most political parties.

What he won’t reveal is anything that republicans might not know and could therefore use to their advantage. Think of it like google not revealing new code in development to bing.

IMO there will be a lot more interest in Britain and in mainland Europe on the outcome of this American election than with many past. Because of the fiscal cliff coming up in January, it matters greatly what happens in the elections for the House and the Senate as well as what happens in the election for the President:

Quote: “The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ would drag America into certain recession”
http://www.newstatesman.com/employment/2012/10/fiscal-cliff-would-drag-america-certain-recession

It’s a measure of how partisan and polarised American politics have become when President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, introduced by the Federal Aid Highways Act of 1956, was dubbed the largest public works programme since the building of the Pyramids.

who the hell is telling a UK blogger anything that they are not also telling to every other passing journalist, and is hence already common gossip and well known to Republican strategists?

see the recent Crooked Timber post on insider knowledge

@ 8 Luis

“who the hell is telling a UK blogger anything that they are not also telling to every other passing journalist, and is hence already common gossip and well known to Republican strategists?”

Sunny isn’t there as a journo, he’s there to help out with the campaign. Possibly that involves access ti need-to-know stuff.

He’s helping with their headlines

This is the problem with democracy, the more nutty the voter, the more likely they’ll actually go and vote, moderate, sane people are quite capable of sitting at home and not bothering.

The ones who believe Obama is a Muslim/Kenyan/Alien/Terrorist are the ones who’ll be queueing around the block to make their voice heard.

We really need to make sure the regular, moderate people on both sides get out there.

@3 True, but I wasn’t suggesting Romney had an unfair advantage, just that the whole system ill befits a nation that claims to be the beacon of democracy. So between you and me we have eleven states + DC with twice as many electoral votes as Illinois but only just over half the population. No European democracy would put up with this. Why do the Americans?

“He’s helping with their headlines”

Ha!

As in “It was the Sunny wot won it”

@12

Because the US is a Federation. The point is that each state has an equal voice in the senate, a proportionate voice in the house of representatives and a mix of the two in the presidential election.

This was true at the start, which is why they haven’t changed it.

Also, don’t forget, the US has strong state governments, and other bodies lower down.

The idea that Europeans wouldn’t put with this level of democracy is actually rather laughable.

A couple of additional points @12:

1) The reality is that one candidate or the other will usually emerge as the clear winner. One outlier was 2000 where Gore was just ahead in % of the vote, but lost to Bush. The latter, however, had a majority of states, and a huge majority of individual counties. In terms of overall appeal to what is a diverse federation, the right man won, and the system worked (let’s ignore the man himself for a moment).

2) An additional feature is mid-term elections. A poorly performing President may lose Congress to the other side mid-term (he may not have had it to begin with).

@ 14 Jack C

“As in “It was the Sunny wot won it””

Or “Obama Campaign Destroyed by Blatantly False Headlines, Republicans Predicted to Hold Power for Next 50 Years”

@ 15 Jack C

“The idea that Europeans wouldn’t put with this level of democracy is actually rather laughable.”

I dunno, I’ve been mulling that one over. On one hand, if we suddenly had a system where a vote in Manchester was worth four in London*, we’d probably be up in arms (although maybe not the “we” near me, as I’m in Manchester). But if it had been that way for all time, we’d probably be so used to politicians blocking attempts to change it that we’d have gotten bored of the issue.

*I’m aware that a vote in a swing seat is worth roughly a gazillion times one in a safe seat, but the system looks fair at a casual glance, and that counts for a lot.

Chaise,
We have similar oddities. At present, Labour have an advantage through current boundaries, whilst we have a Prime Minister with little support in either Scotland or Wales. Also, Scotland and Wales are over-represented in just the way that smaller US states are

We also have a situation where (ordinarily) a minority party has a majority of seats. It is very rare for a US president to lose the popular vote.

Smaller states are over-represented to reduce the “tryanny of the majority”. The constitution allows for this to be changed, but there doesn’t seem to be a mood for it.

And, of course, winning the Presidency only means so much. At a National level, Congress and the Supreme Court are the other two-thirds of Government (each can keep the others in check).
They then have State Government, localised government below that, etc etc.
It’s certainly not winner takes all.

@ 19 Jack C

“We have similar oddities. At present, Labour have an advantage through current boundaries, whilst we have a Prime Minister with little support in either Scotland or Wales. Also, Scotland and Wales are over-represented in just the way that smaller US states are”

Labour does have an advantage, although it’s swamped by the advantage BOTH big parties enjoy from FPTP. In other words, the current system massively favours the Tories – it just favours Labour even more.

I wouldn’t call it an “oddity” that the government is unpopular in the smaller countries. You’ll always find regions where this is the case; it just looks artificially noticable because of those national boundaries.

“We also have a situation where (ordinarily) a minority party has a majority of seats. It is very rare for a US president to lose the popular vote.”

Yeah, that one’s a problem.

“Smaller states are over-represented to reduce the “tryanny of the majority”. The constitution allows for this to be changed, but there doesn’t seem to be a mood for it.”

I should note that it can also be down to difficulties reconciling the national and local duties of MPs. I can’t remember offhand what our smallest constituency is, but I think it’s one of the Isles. The problem there is that if you give them a normal-sized constituency, they share a local representative with mainland citizens who probably have completely different interests.

The common thread here? FPTP sucks.

@Chaise

“the current system massively favours the Tories – it just favours Labour even more”.

Well, quite so, and easily forgotten.

“The common thread here? FPTP sucks”

Yes, but NO but. One thing equally repellent is the party-list system.

I don’t think there’s a single magic system; so long as you can chuck the buggers out from time to time we should be grateful.

My starting point was that it was laughable to say that Europeans wouldn’t stand for US levels of democracy. Extremely arrogant and ill-informed too.

@ 22 Jack C

“Yes, but NO but. One thing equally repellent is the party-list system.

I don’t think there’s a single magic system; so long as you can chuck the buggers out from time to time we should be grateful.”

True enough, though I think we can improve on what we have now. I quite like AV as a fudge – at least it provides the opportunity for smaller parties to grow. And there’s probably something clever you could do with PR as well.

“My starting point was that it was laughable to say that Europeans wouldn’t stand for US levels of democracy. Extremely arrogant and ill-informed too.”

I think the main problem is that it’s defining “levels of democracy” by one standard on which we happen to be better than the US, while ignoring all the other standards on which we’re crap.

I like AV as well, for two reasons:

1) The winning candidate has to have 50%+ to win, albeit with 2nd preference votes and beyond.

2) As you say, it gives smaller parties a chance. If I’m anti-Tory than I’m pushed towards the biggest opponent. But what if I prefer the 3rd biggest? Etc.

Back to the US: the bigger, “disadvantaged” states don’t appear to mind being under-represented in the Electoral College. This may tell us something?

@ 24 Jack C

It might, but I don’t know what. Possibly a respect for tradition, although that doesn’t seem all that likely considering what US politics is like. Maybe there is an Understanding of some kind – like the bigger states actually get a big advantage due to clout, and fear that if they mess up the system they’ll lose more than they gain. I really don’t know.