Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Actinguy

NEW 2012 US Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

It's not illegal, the electors for a state simply can not cast both their votes for President and their votes for President for candidates from their state (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). (See Amendment 12 of the Constitution.)

This still allows a President and Vice President from the same state. Their home state though would have to cast it's electoral ballots (they would chose it's ballots for Vice President) to the candidate that came in second place for that role.

For instance, Dick Cheney was living in Texas at the time of his nomination for the Vice Presidency. He quickly moved his voter registration back to Wyoming (where he had represented in Congress). Had he not, when the electors met in December of 2000, the state of Texas would have cast it's 32 Electoral Votes for President for George W. Bush, and then would be forced to cast it's 32 Electoral Votes for Vice President for Joe Lieberman, who came in second. This would have resulted in Lieberman becoming Bush's VP (298 to Cheney's 239).

Exactly. While Rahm can only realistically claim Illinois as his home state, having been born AND lived there nearly his entire life, Barack could easily switch his to Hawaii, which is his place of birth. Extremely unlikely, sure. But legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys...I'm ready to release an EXTREMELY beta test to those who want it. Here's what I've done so far:

Updated all dates and state delegate numbers to be accurate to the 2012 election. This involved me having to "invent" primary dates, which I tried to do as logically as possible while working off of the Republican 2010 Amendment (google it). For Republicans, the First Four occur in February. Then a few states in March with proportional voting, then around half in April, some in May, some in June, and a couple in July. The final one in July is California, which of course is also the largest. All states in April-July are winner-takes all. This is in keeping with the 2010 amendment.

For democrats, every primary takes place on a single day in August. That is not my final intention, I'm just focused on other areas right now.

Created republican/democrat percentages based on a group of articles I found that created what I think is a fairly realistic portrayal of the 2012 election...Obama is in the lead EV-wise, but with less than 270. It is based on a combination of past elections, current polls, and Obama's approval rating by state. The 50-50 swing states at the start are Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. There are also a series of states with either a slight democratic or republican slant (55-45) such as Iowa and Arizona respectively.

Issues are done. These are basically 2008 wonk edition issues, plus North Korea (instead of Iraq)

Democrats:

Barack Obama. Clearly dominates the primaries.

Michael Bloomberg. The Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent is the only person I could think of who could realistically distance himself from Obama's policies AND wouldn't care about pissing off the Democratic Establishment. He starts off with minimal support but a giant financial lead (the guy spent over 70 million just to become mayor of New York). I'm going to default him ON only because the general election becomes more exciting that way. I fully admit that even if Bloomberg DOES run in 2012, it won't be as a Democrat...however, it's the most realistic policy I could think of. Clinton can't extricate herself from Obama's administration when she's IN it, Bayh doesn't want to piss off Dems unless he absolutely knows he can win, Feingold doesn't want to hand the election to the republicans, and Kucinich is a joke.

Republicans:

Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich. I hope to have one more done before bed tonight, and two or three more by tomorrow night.

Third Party:

Bob Spacebar

Anyhow, 30 or so more Republicans, my major projects ahead of me are fixing the Dem primary dates, updating endorsers, then VPs, then events. After that, I'll announce the main release, although I'll continue to touch it up from there.

If you're interested in the EXTREMELY BETA beta version, please leave me your e-mail. I only ask three things:

1) You're welcome to spacebar of course, but I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who are actively playing as a candidate.

2) You can say whatever you want of course, but only constructive criticism will actually impact future releases of the game. "Bloomberg will never run as a Democrat" doesn't help. "Here's someone who is more likely" DOES help.

3) If you actually want to get your hands dirty, by offering to help with candidate specifics, events, etc...YES PLEASE. ;c)

Thanks for all of your continued assistance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love the beta version too! bawlexus91@hotmail.com

PS - I really don't understand why you have SC as a 50/50 swing state. Nothing about state polls, or past voting history indicates that. And for that matter, state polls do not reflect that NC would be a 50/50 state either. With the exception of the fact that it went to Obama by less than 1 percentage point in 2008, state polls havent been that great to Obama in my homestate. Not to mention that Bush won the state twice by double digits. Not saying it wouldn't go to Obama in 2012, I just think there's a better than 50% chance it wont, and probably a 60% chance SC won't.

Beyond those nitpicks, this sounds like the best 2012 scenario yet. Looking forward to it! bawlexus91@hotmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys! I'll send them out tonight, thanks for the interest!

Re: The Carolinas. There is a very good, logical reason for why the Carolinas are 50/50. But I have no idea what that logical reason is, because I can't find my notes right now. ;c)

I can tell you what I looked at though in making my decisions: Obama approval ratings, the past several elections, likely voters, and some other factors that I'm blanking on right now. I'm not suggesting that it is literally 50/50 in real life, just that it's close enough to swing. I've set it up so that while Obama starts with 50/50, when it comes to the issues, the Republicans are the favorite, generally speaking. Of course, it will all come down to WHICH republican is actually chosen.

That said, I'm totally up for changing it. I have other priorities right now (both for the game and real life), but I'll look at it again as soon as I can. Thanks for the feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North Carolina has a considerable amount of African American voters, if I remember correctly.

Turnout was huge in 2008, so it's fair to assume that the state will be in play again in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys...I'm ready to release an EXTREMELY beta test to those who want it.

FYI

By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (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 bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading...but I don't understand how it works, if it doesn't abolish the electoral college.

Regardless, Campaigns Forever (the software that is allowing me to make this scenario) only allows for a traditional electoral college win. But thanks for the info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading...but I don't understand how it works, if it doesn't abolish the electoral college.

Regardless, Campaigns Forever (the software that is allowing me to make this scenario) only allows for a traditional electoral college win. But thanks for the info!

When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from the enacting states (with at least 270 of 538) would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) to guarantee that candidate the presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from the enacting states (with at least 270 of 538) would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) to guarantee that candidate the presidency.

i.e. if states whose total EVs add up to 270 approve this bill by 2012, and in 2012 one candidate gets 51% of the vote, those 270+ electors cast there vote for the 51% guy. pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI

By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The game engine doesn't allow the Electoral College to be linked to the popular vote.

Interesting reading...but I don't understand how it works, if it doesn't abolish the electoral college.

The idea is to bypass a constitutional amendment (which would be necessary to abolish the electoral college, but politically much harder to do than simply passing bills state-by-state) by making it basically irrelevant. It just links popular vote in a state as closely as possible to the electoral votes received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we stop debating the popular vote and move back to the original topic, please?

bumping my email since I haven't received a copy:

adayamothrawn@gmx.de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I understand it now, but it still can't be done within the game for software reasons.

I'll have a very beta beta version out to you guys tonight. Know I said that before, but I keep wanting to tweak it more. ;c)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys! I'll send them out tonight, thanks for the interest!

Re: The Carolinas. There is a very good, logical reason for why the Carolinas are 50/50. But I have no idea what that logical reason is, because I can't find my notes right now. ;c)

I can tell you what I looked at though in making my decisions: Obama approval ratings, the past several elections, likely voters, and some other factors that I'm blanking on right now. I'm not suggesting that it is literally 50/50 in real life, just that it's close enough to swing. I've set it up so that while Obama starts with 50/50, when it comes to the issues, the Republicans are the favorite, generally speaking. Of course, it will all come down to WHICH republican is actually chosen.

That said, I'm totally up for changing it. I have other priorities right now (both for the game and real life), but I'll look at it again as soon as I can. Thanks for the feedback!

I never got it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks! Internet has been down at my house for several days. I'm terribly worried that the family we've been stealing wireless from has moved away. :rolleyes:

We'll be getting our own internet within the next few days, and then I'll be able to send this out. (I'm posting from work right now.)

Thanks for everyone's patience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you've got tons of work ahead with 30 republicans and i would hate to add more to your workload. However, instead of Ben Stein, another celebrity you may want to think about would be Donald Trump. He has says he is considering running as a republican, and although i doubt he will, its most likely a publicity stunt, i do think its more realistic then Ben Stein.

Here is a link to an article confirming he has actually been talking about it

Trump Considers bid for President

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...