From my perch it appears that US politics is becoming increasingly polarised between left and right, with the so-called “undecided” or independent voter in the middle determining most election outcomes … so I decided to have a bit of a play with the Electoral College and see what would/could happen if a genuine third-party with a Centrist perspective were to emerge. There are a number of prominent national politicians who could be persuaded to join such a party (eg US Senators Lieberman, Sanders, Snowe, Collins, McCain; fmr Senator Hagel; Bloomberg, et al).

In 2008 the final Electoral College result was 364 to 174 (Remember, you need 270 to win). I’ve looked at the state percentage results and have plugged these into the Electoral College to see what would happen in two examples: those states that were won (by either McCain or Obama) with less than 5.0% of the vote; and those states that were won (by either McCain or Obama )with less than 55% of the vote. A summary of the states in the two examples are:

States won with less than 5.0% margin in 2008:

Florida (Obama 2.81%)
Indiana (Obama 1.03%)
Missouri (McCain 0.13%)
Montana (McCain 2.38%)
North Carolina (Obama 0.33%)
Ohio (Obama 4.58%)

States won with less than 55% of the vote in 2008:

Arizona (McCain 53.39%)
Colorado (Obama 53.66%)
Florida (Obama 50.91%)
Georgia (McCain 52.10%)
Indiana (Obama 49.86%)
Iowa (Obama 53.93%)
Minnesota (Obama 54.06%)
Missouri (McCain 48.36%)
Montana (McCain 49.49%)
New Hampshire (Obama 54.13%)
North Carolina (Obama 49.70%)
North Dakota (McCain 53.15%)
Ohio (Obama 51.38%)
Pennsylvania (Obama 54.47%)
South Carolina (McCain 53.87%)
South Dakota (McCain 53.16%)
Virginia (Obama 52.63%)

The results are very interesting. If all of the states won with less than 5.0% of the vote were instead won by a Centre third party, then the final Electoral College results would have been:
Democrat 291
Republican 160
Centre Party 87

If all of the states won with less than 55.0% of the vote were instead won by a Centre third party, then the final Electoral College results would have been:
Democrat 227
Republican 121
Centre Party 190

In other words, the result would have not been decided and would have gone to the House of Reps.

Given these results, I decided to then have a look at what would have happened if the same principles applied to the 2004 election result. In 2004 the final Electoral College result was 273 to 252.

States won with less than 5.0% margin in 2004:
Colorado (Bush 4.67%)
Iowa (Bush (0.67%)
Michigan (Kerry 3.42%)
Minnesota (Kerry 3.48%)
Nevada (Bush 5.29%)
New Hampshire (Kerry 1.37%)
New Mexico (Kerry 0.79%)
Ohio (Bush 2.11%)
Oregon (Kerry 4.16%)
Pennsylvania (Kerry 2.50%)
Wisconsin (Kerry 49.70%)

States won with less than 55% of the vote in 2004:
Arizona (Bush 54.87%)
Arkansas (Bush 54.31%)
California (Kerry 54.31%)
Colorado (Bush 4.67%)
Connecticut (Kerry 54.31%)
Delaware (Kerry 53.35%)
Florida (Bush 52.10%)
Hawaii (Kerry 54.01%)
Illinois (Kerry 54.82%)
Iowa (Bush (0.67%)
Maine (Kerry 53.57%)
Michigan (Kerry 3.42%)
Minnesota (Kerry 3.48%)
Missouri (Bush 53.30%)
Nevada (Bush 5.29%)
New Hampshire (Kerry 1.37%)
New Jersey (Kerry 52.92%)
New Mexico (Kerry 0.79%)
Ohio (Bush 2.11%)
Oregon (Kerry 4.16%)
Pennsylvania (Kerry 2.50%)
Virgina (Bush 53.68%)
Washington (Kerry 52.82%)
Wisconsin (Kerry 49.70%)

If all of the states won with less than 5.0% of the vote were instead won by a Centre third party, then the final Electoral College results would have been:
Democrat 183
Republican 227
Centre Party 115

If all of the states won with less than 55.0% of the vote were instead won by a Centre third party, then the final Electoral College results would have been:
Democrat 63
Republican 173
Centre Party 302

In the first example, the result would have been thrown to the House of Reps for a decision; and in the second we would have had a third-party candidate elected!!

Now, I think the second calculation in each example (ie states won with less than 55% of the vote) is not the best reflection of accuracy; so I think it’s more likely to focus on the first calculation. In each example, the Electoral College would have “failed” in it’s basic role – to elect a President.

Now I could go back and examine further past results (and may do in the future if I have a bit more time to kill), but I think these two examples show that IF a legitimately strong centre party was established, then they would have a serious shot at winning. But I do think though that this further highlights that the Electoral College was designed around a two-party system, and some thought may need to be given to its future functioning if/when a third party attempts to make a serious run. I wonder if the inherent flaws in the electoral college are the reason that serious third-party candidates don’t run (and let’s face it, there hasn’t been a serious candidate since 1912 – one can hardly call Thurmond, Wallace, etc “electable” on a national scale).

I’m interested in what others think?

How many votes does the centre party have in the House? In the Senate?

I think a centre party presidential victory would be a disaster for this country.

__________________
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

Why? Not being smart.

how would it be different than now ? IMO the "center" party nearly always wins. You point this out yourself when you note that its the leaning of the mushy middle that wins elections.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

The National Popular Vote bill would 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.

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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 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. This national result is similar to 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): 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%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

There is a reason they did it the way they did. The Federalist Papers should be required reading in school.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

yeah...and that reason no longer applies the modern world.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

Just how does it NOT apply to the Modern World?

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

well as i understand it the reason the electoral college was implemented was because voters had no means with which to properly educate themselves on presidential candidates they may have never heard of. voters would vote for a locally known politician who would be more likely to make an educated choice for his consituents on who should be president. today, people have the means to decide for themselves who they want to be president, and the electoral college effectively makes a large number of votes cast meaningless. basing it on the popular vote means that everyone's vote is counted and is worth exactly the same no matter what state you're in...which to me seems like the logical way of doing things.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

Just how many people research a politician vs how many go along with the 30sec sound bit that sounded good?

Popular vote would mean that the Cities(over 2mill) would be where the politician spends the time and money.

You are correct when you say that it would not matter what state one is in , only what Large city one lives in would matter.

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

Negative. It was so candidates didnt simply go to the most populated states and ignore the small states. There is a reason Iowa and New Hampshire primary deciders, and that is the electoral college. In the modern world, Obama would simply go to New York, LA, and CHicago, and never show his face in wyoming or Alaska. However you do have a point about voters being dumb asses, which manys any system of election is going to be tilted towards pandering to the masses, regardless of whether its electoral or popular vote.

Further more we are UNION of states, not one big country. A floridian is not the same as a californian, and we dont want to be. Hence why we dont want a Californian individual have a vote that is exactly the worth of a floridian. Or rather we dont want California and New York to decide how florida is going to be federally governed.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

this is a reason to support going back to the old days of electing a local guy to vote for whomever he wants to be president. right now people vote for someone who is required to vote a certain way. people no longer elect the voters, but are rather directly voting for who they wish to be candidate. unfortunately, if you pick the guy who loses in your state, your vote becomes meaningless.

politicians already spend most of their time and money in big cities because more people live there. that wouldn't change at all. why would changing to a popular vote system change the fact that a politician is likely to spend more time campaigning in los angeles than in napa?

there is literally no logical reason i can think of why the electoral college shouldn't be abolished.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

so what? how much time do you think candidates spend on those states now? how much time do you think they spend on D.C.?

actually i wasn't commenting on the intelligence of voters. i was commenting on their ability to conveniently access information concerning candidates.

well basically what you're arguing for here is giving each state an equal amount of electoral votes. california and new york already do have a much larger say than florida regardless of how many votes are cast in each state. under our current system, even if every single floridian votes and 1% of californians vote, california still has more say in who becomes president. how does that make sense? basically what you're arguing for here is giving each state an equal amount of electoral votes.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

They spend a significant amount of time in the small states, because those small states often make the difference in close elections. When you have to earn only 535 votes, every vote counts. Unlike in a popular vote, were only large blocks of votes count. Im not arguing for giving each state an equal amount. Im arguing for keeping the current system which gives smaller states a more significant say in elections than their population would suggest. The sole idea was to keep the urban areas from ruling the rural areas,w hich is still a problem today with the liberal populated states trying to rule the less populated rural states.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

and how would that change? if the small states often make the difference in close elections, then the small cities would often make the difference in close elections in a popular vote.

when you have to earn only 535 votes, only large blocks of votes count, unlike in a popular vote, where every vote counts...i'm not sure how you got that one flipped around but something tells me no argument i can make is going to help you see the error in your logic.

you might not believe that you're arguing for giving each state an equal amount, but that is what your last post would support.

and why, logically, should rural voters have more say than urban voters? are rural voters smarter than urban voters?

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine