|Title||Obama Will Win, [But] Romney Will Be President
How Political Parties Target Electoral College Votes to Win Presidential Elections
A Historical Analysis of Every U.S. Presidential Election
|Author(s)||Everett E. Murdock, Ph.D|
|Description||This is one of those rare books that gives even more than it promises. Novelist and history buff, E.E. Murdock, predicts that the 2012 presidential election will have a surprising and disturbing outcome: Barack Obama will the popular vote by as much as one million votes, but Romney will be named president because of the biased design of the Electoral College System.
Dr. Murdock makes his case by analyzing every presidential election in U.S. history, carefully ferreting out historical details that reveal just how the Electoral College has influenced election results since it was created at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. One of the author's disturbing revelations is how the Southern slave states were able to manipulate the design of the Electoral College system to get disproportionate representation in deciding who would be president. In fact, conflicts over slavery had significant influence on all of the presidential elections prior to the Civil War. Though few people realize it, that unfair advantage affects presidential elections to this day; it was the reason, in the election of 2000, Al Gore won 543,895 more votes than George Bush but did not get to be president.
From duels to wars to riots and assassinations, Dr. Murdock describes how, throughout history, national and international events affected which candidate would be president. He has created a book chock full of little-known information about our nation's presidential history, information that every U.S. citizen should know before they walk into their local polling place on November 6, 2012.
|Dedication||"For Zoe, Without whom this book would not exist, and without whom I would not exist."|
|Book Dimensions||Width: 6.0″|
|Depth: 0.56″ (9/16″)|
|Contents||Acknowledgements, Introduction, seventeen (17) chapters, Conclusions, Index|
|Published||May 14, 2012|
|Publisher||H.O.T. Press (www.hotpresspublishing.com)|
|Copyright||© 2012 by Everett E. Murdock|
|Printed by||Bemrose Printing C.I.P., Derby / Thetford Press Limited, Thetford, Norfolk|
|Book Format||Paperback, Kindle|
|Best Seller's List||--|
|Other||Everett E. Murdock is an Emeritus Professor at California State University, Long Beach.|
|Another version of the book cover features an orange and lighter blue combo.|
|Volume 2 titled "Obama Won, [But] Romney Almost Was President" is a follow-up to this book.|
|Library of Congress
|LC Control Number||???|
|LC Call Number||???|
|DDC Call Number||???|
The first point is interesting because if the presidency was decided by popular vote, the states with larger populations would decide who should run our country, which would deem unfair for states with low populations. The second point holds some truth value—a harsh one at that. Reason is because delegates believe the people voting aren't knowledgeable enough about their candidate, his plans and where he will lead the country to. I feel this is understandable. Nevertheless, the 48 states (besides Maine and Nebraska) use what's called Winner-Take-All system: that is, the electors from those states are recommended they place the vote of the candidate who wins that state's popular vote. Murdock comments, "That means, when the Electoral College members vote, the votes the less popular candidate received in the general election are thrown out. It's as if those people never voted at all." As you read through, the Electoral College system complied with the popular vote 93% of the time, in terms of choosing the president and vice president. You realize and learn about the rare failures occurred within the 7% from the past elections. Will we see that in this year's 2012 election? There are 538 members in the Electoral College, and for the candidate to win, he needs one vote about half of the members: that number is 270 votes. What happens if either candidate fails to acquire 270? The decision is sent to the House of Representatives.
(Murdock, 2012, p.18)
- The delegates from the smaller states knew the more populous states would control the presidential elections.
- Many of delegates didn't trust the people to make the decisions.
"Over the years, the Electoral College system has sometimes failed to agree with the people's choice for president. So why haven't the people risen up to demand an end to the Electoral College? Hard to say. It's probably just because we tend to forget about things if they seem to be working 'all right.' Only when things go wrong, do we get riled up and want to do something about it." (Murdock, ed 2012, p.34)This must explain why I was one of those people glued to watching the [cable] news channels all day finding out the progress of the elections and who won. (It actually brought me into a minor mental panic and loss of concentration at school that time. I can't imagine someone who thrives on constantly watching the news every minute. Go figure.)
|Obama Will Win||Romney Will Win||Swing State*||Unsure|
|New Hampshire||4 votes|
|New Jersey||14 votes|
|New Mexico||5 votes|
|New York||29 votes|
|North Carolina||15 votes|
|North Dakota||3 votes|
|Rhode Island||4 votes|
|South Carolina||9 votes|
|South Dakota||3 votes|
|Washington D.C.||3 votes|
|West Virginia||5 votes|
"The winner-take-all system is extremely unfair because the people who voted for the less popular candidate get no credit for their vote at all. All votes for the losing candidate get thrown out. In fact, if you know the candidate you favor is sure to win your state, what is the point of voting at all?" (Murdock, ed 2012, p.209)I currently live in California, and being a Democratic state this is, it is no surprise the Democratic nominee Barack Obama has this state covered. Of course, this doesn't mean I and everyone else shouldn't vote despite the College's role, but what value do our votes hold? If we were the 'other' party, besides Democratic, will our votes still count? What happens if the elector(s) vote the other party? Those electors are called "faithless electors," and yes faithless voting has happened in the past.
"If what happened in 2000 happens again in 2012, will the people rise up and demand a change? They didn't in 2000 when the presidential candidate who won the general election by more than half a million votes was not allowed to take his rightful place as the president of the United States. If it happens again this time, will anybody care? Will the people demand the right to directly elect our presidents? We shall see." (Murdock, ed 2012, p.211)Yes I do feel the people will make a stand. Unfortunately, it won't be very significant. I rightfully place all the blame on sports and reality TV. As you can see, majority are more concerned about their favorite team, and voting for who should win a mediocre talent show, more than our country's status. They constantly babble about how "we" need to strengthen our defense next time and never backdown against haters pointing fun at "my" team. No matter what, these folks are willing to spend their life savings on something with no effect to the outside world, regardless of our economy, let alone, spending all their time watching sports without a care for their loved ones and more; They simply sit there to make moderately educated athletes that much more rich. It's terrible and downright sad. Anyway, folks would like to see Obama reelected but the reaction of the people will likely take a toll, though, again, not by much, as soon as the results are in. What about the other people? Will they make a stand? Doubt it because they have a game to watch.