On November 6,  2012, 3.2 million fewer Americans voted for Mitt Romney than President Obama. 61.8 million Americans voted for Obama, while only 58.6 million voted for Romney.

Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%--not a landslide for Obama by any means, but on the other hand not the “neck and neck” outcome many predicted--Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.

The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.

Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s  327,870.

Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes  by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney's 4,162,174.

I'm not sure what this means. Is the EC a good thing or not.

Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779

Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s  1,789,618.

Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.

Right now, the presidential race is really in 5 or 6 states. If we changed to a simply majority, think ahead, what would happen? How  and wo would politicians target for votes? Would California become more important instead of a gimmie for Democrats? Would Texas be targeted by Dems now? Small states like Idaho, Montana are ignored now, I wouldn't expect to see that change, or would it?

Al Gore and Webster agree...

Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocolypse?... ...

Serowbot wrote on 11/12/12 at 08:16:36:



But @ different points of time ... you see that's why the world hasn't imploded already.
Cool.
Srinath.