OpEdNews » Lies, Damn Lies and Polls

As of last Friday, Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 3 points in Gallup's Daily Poll, 48% to 45%. Even after a Republican convention the media deemed a "success," McCain seemed to experience no significant post-convention "bump" in his poll numbers as is often the case. However, as if by miracle, McCain has come out of the weekend with an 6 point swing in the poll numbers with him now leading Obama 48% to 45% in Gallup's latest daily poll. It would seem as if McCain is "surging," right?

Well, consider me a sceptic. I've never been a fan of poll numbers and they are generally as accurate as flipping a coin when it come to predicting elections. However, what bothers me the most is that they seem primarily to be "yellow journalism" tools for the media. If the media can get you to believe that the race is closer than most people think, it believes in can get more people to tune in to its coverage. Is it just a case of wanting more "eyes" for advertising or is it a blatant attempt by the media to influence the election by getting more people to view "slanted" coverage? Rather than attempt to answer that question, view this video by Noam Chomsky and decide for yourself:

10 year Navy veteran,former Federal employee with various agencies,
Gallaher10 year Navy veteran,former Federal employee with various agencies,

Why place more stock in the electoral college polls?

Simple, that is the way the President is elected in this Republic.

The people as a whole do not elect a President to represent the United States.

The States select the President.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 833 comments) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM

a
S Ea

Support the National Popular Vote bill

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, 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. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- 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).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

susan

by S E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 1:45:29 PM