>>>>This will change drastically over the next couple of hours (and days), but it's interesting to note the difference between electoral and popular votes:
>>>>
>>>>Obama:
>>>>Electoral Votes: 64
>>>>Popular Vote: 48% 3,497,217 votes
>>>>
>>>>Romney:
>>>>Electoral Votes: 40
>>>>Popular Vote: 51% 3,643,386 votes
>>>
>>>As it turned out Obama had comfortable margins on both counts. The popular vote was close, 50% to 49% for Obama. The electoral vote will not be so close even if Florida is overturned on a recount.
>>>
>>>It's time to pitch the electoral college. I realize there are many reasons it is unlikely that will happen. The biggest one is that it will require a Constitutional amendment requiring passage by a large majority of states (67? 75?), many of them being small states who have a disproportionate influence under the current system. But it is practically the definition of an anachronism. When it was enacted in the early days of our country the average man had little information about the candidates. Most early Americans were agrarian and had little information about the outside world at all. That has obviously changed a great deal. There was also skepticism about the ability of the "common man" to make sound choices. So we wound up with this Hamiltonian system that our betters would vote for us. That is by the boards now, not to mention the many disenfranchised voters (women, non-whites) who were not represented at all. This is an 18th century tradition which no longer serves any useful purpose.
>>>
>>>A subtler but IMO more important change is that it really would become one man, one vote. Under the electoral college system only a dozen or so states, the so-called battleground states, really matter. It's rare when the candidates even visit the other states. What motivation do residents of those states have to go out and vote other than a commitment to the democratic process? They know their votes don't matter.
>>>
>>>It's time for a change in the name of fairness and equality.
>>
>>I'm not really sure how I feel about the electoral college (which, I guess, means I don't feel strongly). But it's worth noting that, without it, the candidates never really have to go anywhere but big cities. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>The west and the higher populated areas is exactly where the vote was one. Then there is and Interesting perspective here:
>http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14993875-first-thoughts-obamas-demographic-edge?lite
>
>As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.

This is exactly what I've been hearing from all corners. When everyone agrees, my natural tendency is to head the other way. ;)
I'm curious, what do you think of my analysis? Message #1556728.