Everything old is new again
Recently, there have been murmurs in different news organizations speculating that, in an ironic twist of fate, George W. Bush could win the popular vote, which he failed to do in 2000, but lose the Electoral College vote, where he eked out a win over Al Gore four years ago.
I felt a strange sense of deja vu when I first heard this story this year, because it sounded oddly familiar to stories I thought had run four years ago prior to the election. I thought I remembered stories from before the 2000 contest that Bush could win the popular vote but fall short in the electoral vote. Sure enough, I found stories here and here that ran in the mainstream media outlining that very scenario.
The Business Week story said the following:
"Only three times in history--the last in 1888--has a candidate lost the popular vote and triumphed in the Electoral College. While unlikely in 2000, it's plausible. Why? Gore's big-state edge. If the Democrat adds, say, Michigan or Florida to his tally, he could eke out an Electoral College victory while trailing Bush in the popular vote.
"Another electoral oddity: Bush holds a huge edge in his home state, which carries far more weight in terms of the popular vote than the Electoral College. Indeed, current computer projections find that a Texas landslide could skew the national popular vote by about 1.5 percentage points. But Bush gets the same 32 electoral votes from Texas whether he wins by 1% or 31%. In what could be the closest race since Gerald Ford/Jimmy Carter in 1976, Gore's secret weapon might end up being the Electoral College."
And CNN stated, "Diverging trends in national and state polls are adding another level of uncertainty to the closest presidential race in decades -- and inspiring speculation that Al Gore might lose the popular vote yet still win an electoral college majority that places him in the White House."
It may very well be a legitimate story this year, but it's hardly new, and shouldn't be presented that way. The media hoped Bush would lose in 2000; they hope he loses this year. They have one note, and they play it loud and long.
By the way, look for an onslaught of media coverage critical of the Electoral College, and certain politicians calling for its abolition following the election. It's a bad idea to dump the college, which I will explain about in more detail later.
I felt a strange sense of deja vu when I first heard this story this year, because it sounded oddly familiar to stories I thought had run four years ago prior to the election. I thought I remembered stories from before the 2000 contest that Bush could win the popular vote but fall short in the electoral vote. Sure enough, I found stories here and here that ran in the mainstream media outlining that very scenario.
The Business Week story said the following:
"Only three times in history--the last in 1888--has a candidate lost the popular vote and triumphed in the Electoral College. While unlikely in 2000, it's plausible. Why? Gore's big-state edge. If the Democrat adds, say, Michigan or Florida to his tally, he could eke out an Electoral College victory while trailing Bush in the popular vote.
"Another electoral oddity: Bush holds a huge edge in his home state, which carries far more weight in terms of the popular vote than the Electoral College. Indeed, current computer projections find that a Texas landslide could skew the national popular vote by about 1.5 percentage points. But Bush gets the same 32 electoral votes from Texas whether he wins by 1% or 31%. In what could be the closest race since Gerald Ford/Jimmy Carter in 1976, Gore's secret weapon might end up being the Electoral College."
And CNN stated, "Diverging trends in national and state polls are adding another level of uncertainty to the closest presidential race in decades -- and inspiring speculation that Al Gore might lose the popular vote yet still win an electoral college majority that places him in the White House."
It may very well be a legitimate story this year, but it's hardly new, and shouldn't be presented that way. The media hoped Bush would lose in 2000; they hope he loses this year. They have one note, and they play it loud and long.
By the way, look for an onslaught of media coverage critical of the Electoral College, and certain politicians calling for its abolition following the election. It's a bad idea to dump the college, which I will explain about in more detail later.
posted by Hal | 12:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home