IMPORTANT Electoral vote question! Adding votes so Bush can win???

[gatorboy]

At this link:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040724/D841CACO0.html

There was a segemtn that caught my eye and actually scared the crap out of me:

<snip>
Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes - one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.

Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush's states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore's are worth just 260.
<snip>

What the hell???

I was wondering if anyone knew exactly which states they had to change the votes for. I find it odd that conservative states got a boost, while the liberal states lost votes.

Could they screw with the voting for each state this year for an easier Bush win?

LIke I said, this makes me extremely uncomfortable and would like to dig more into the process of adding and taking votes and from what states this took place.

[blackcat77]

1. Nothing devious here....

Sunbelt states had their populations increase and rust belt states did not, so they lost votes to places like Texas and Florida.

[shraby]

2. How could they do that?

I would think it would be based on the census which was taken in the year 2000 and not due to be taken again until 2010.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Yeah.

I think the 2000 election still used the 1990 census, and this one is the first to use the 2000 census.

[against all enemies]

4. Based on the census, Connecticut lost 1 Representative thus

1 electoral vote. AND there was something devious done to make sure bush got more votes. Census numbers always under count poor people, seeing that many don't have permanent addresses. This undercount can be corrected using a statistical program, in order to more accurately reflect the country's population. The Congress, (Republicans) refused to allow the statistical correction thereby guaranteeing that the rich would get more representation and Bush more electoral votes.

[Rowdyboy]

5. There's no conspiracy here that I can see....Mississippi lost an

electoral vote that would have definitely goe to Bush.

[flordehinojos]

6. Like the prissy cheerleader that he is Bush has been saying all over the

country that he is not planning on losing the elections.

Maybe that is the answer to his apparently DIVINELY INSPIRED KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO LOSE THE ELECTIONS.

:evilgrin:

[gatorboy]

7. From what it looks like on the census

New York's population grew, yet they lost 2 votes. Why is that? Even if it grew at a very small pace, it still seems like the votes should have at least stayed the same. I admit I'm still trying to get a fix on the electoral vote thing so sorry if I sound like a moran. :)

[Bucky]

11. Some western state (Montana?) went from 4 to 3 EC votes. Gotta suck

New York only lost two of 30 votes. That's like a 7% reduction. Montana lost 25% of its EC votes.

The reason NY lost two seats in the Census is because it's growing at a slower rate than the rest of the country. The math they use is pretty straight forward. No hanky panky going on, just incontravertable algebra.

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. This is the innate problem with the Electoral College

The EC was created to take power away from the individual voter. It's based on census population, not on the number of people that show up to the polls. There could be an early blizzard in the northeast, but no matter how many New Yorkers make it to the polls that day, all 33 electoral votes will go to the candidate who got the highest popular vote in that state, and absentee ballots tend to favor the GOP.

It would all be based on population changes that have taken place between 1990 and 2000. The biggest states are the ones most likely to have been gainers, but that means Texas and Florida for Bush and New York and California for Gore. Even so, as we learned in 2000, Florida is was too close to call then and likely will be again. Florida's EV's stayed the same at 27. Texas went from 32 EV to 33, mostly because of population growth in the Hispanic community. Arizona gained 2 as well (8 to 10). New Mexico gained 1 (4 to 5) but was a very close win for Gore in 2000. California stayed the same at 54. New York lost 2 (33 to 31). Mississippi lost 1 (7 to 6).

Even with the shifting numbers of electoral votes, assuming that Bush will win every state he won last time is just not realistic. There are the swing state issues, and then there are states that went to Bush last time, that may not be a slam dunk this time. Louisiana, for example, elected the first Democratic Governor they've had in a while. Many states in the South that have been going GOP for a while suddenly have hundreds of their kids stationed in Iraq and aren't to happy about it. I think the military families could have a noticeable impact.

[nodehopper]

9. I noticed these descrptenciues during the 2000 election

Some Republican states lost electoral votes, but mostly it was Democratic. Some of it was due to population change, and some was classic gerrymandering. It's not exactly conspiracy theory material, but there's dirty crap in there.

[joanne]

10. How can Mississippi possibly be a Repuke state?

I know it is, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's one of the poorest states in the nation, or maybe it IS the poorest.

Like chickens voting for Cournel Sanders.