My two worlds have collided! (Former Portland resident, current resident of Charleston, WV.)

I don't have much to add, since you covered the subject pretty exhaustively, but I feel obligated to comment on the first West Virginia-related post at Blue Oregon.

West Virginia is a neglected state (in so many ways). In 2000, neither Gore nor Bush paid it much attention. WV only has 5 electoral votes, but of course we all know the moral of that story. So, it would be exciting if WV became the linchpin of the 2004 Presidential election.

Of course, I truly hope that neither this nor any other "election nightmare scenario" occurs. I just want a nice, clear Kerry victory.

One question - do you need 270 electoral votes to win, or just the majority? If Richie Robb would just withhold his vote, giving Kerry 269 and Bush 268, would Kerry not be the winner?

I'll get right on that, Kari. :)

By the way, as I've been thinking about this more (it's a fun diversion), I realized that if your carefully-crafted scenario were to actually happen, i.e. if there were a 269-269 tie, there would most likely be many other electors across the country (besides Robb) who would consider changing their votes. I would think that there would be both Kerry & Bush electors who would consider this, as a way to avoid the messiness of a Congressional tiebreaker.

Of course, leaving the decision up to a few "faithless electors" isn't necessarily more desirable than leaving the decision up to Congress.

Okay, this fun diversion has ceased to be fun. I'll go back to being optimistic about a clear Kerry victory.

I suppose right here is as good a place as any to discuss the electoral college in general. I think that lots of Democrats are hating it now because of what happened in 2000. But what if it had gone the other way? Wouldn't those same Democrats be loving it?

I tend to think that the electoral college is a good thing (though I would love to hear some well-reasoned arguments against it). After all, if it weren't for the electoral college, what Presidential candidate would pay any attention to West Virginia (or any number of other states with small populations)? This year - mostly earlier on in the campaign - Kerry, Edwards, Bush, and Cheney (as well as the candidates' family members) have made numerous trips to little old WV. This wouldn't happen without the electoral college.

And since candidates and demographics are always changing, each election sees a different set of states getting attention.

I'm curious about other people's opinions - and not opinions based on underlying anger from the 2000 election. If we just elected the President based on the popular vote, wouldn't California, New York, Texas, and other large states get all of the attention during every single election?

What I think should probably be changed is allowing the "faithless elector" situation. Though I know logically that when I vote for John Kerry (which I did today!!) I'm really voting for electors to cast a vote for Kerry, you can be damn sure that my intent is for those electors to perform the ministerial act of casting that vote for Kerry, should he win the popular vote.

So, if Robb wants to withhold his vote (or give it to some third person) as a statement of protest against Bush, that's really a-okay with me, but not if it would change the outcome of the election. That just seems grossly unfair to me, even though it's perfectly legal. (Don't get me wrong, I want nothing more right now than for Bush to be defeated, but my sense of fairness still tells me that it would be wrong, since I would be enormously pissed off if it happened in the reverse - if a Kerry elector voted for Bush and changed the outcome of the election.)

Sorry if that was a bit rambling. I don't have rock solid opinions on the electoral college, so I'd like to hear some opposing views.

Here's Charlie Cook's most recent column.

==== National Journal Group brings you another edition of Charlie Cook's column, "Off to the Races."

OFF TO THE RACES One Week Out, And One Heap Of Unanswered Questions

By Charlie Cook Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2004

I have no idea who is going to win this election. I really don't.

National polls from reputable polling organizations range from President Bush ahead by seven points (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics) to Sen. John Kerry ahead by three points (Associated Press/Ipsos). The www.realclearpolitics.com seven-day moving average shows Bush with a lead of 3.1 percentage points -- 48.9 percent to Kerry's 45.8 percent. If you assume that independent candidate Ralph Nader and other minor candidates get about two percent of the vote, Bush needs to be around 49 percent to win. But if you assume that the president, as usually is the case with well-known, well-defined incumbents, get very few undecided votes, then one can conclude he is teetering right on the edge of the knife blade, and could fall one way and win, just barely, or the other way and lose, just barely. If you choose to put more weight on job approval ratings as a predictor of a president's vote, that's better for Bush: The RCP average is 50 percent approve, 46.6 percent disapprove.

But that assumes that these national polls are right, and that the Electoral College is going to follow the popular vote. We know from 2000, as Emory University's Alan Abramowitz points out, that of the 43 national polls released during the last week before the election, 39 had Bush ahead, two were tied and only two had Vice President Al Gore in the lead, with the average of all 43 polls showing Bush leading by 3.5 percentage points. Gore carried the popular vote by a half of one percentage point, so the national polls were off by four points.

Now some of this, no doubt, was due to a depression of Republican turnout after the story broke of Bush's arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol a quarter-century earlier. And Democrats were widely thought of as having enjoyed a strong get-out-the-vote organizational advantage that year, which wouldn't necessarily show up in the polls. But the polls were still off -- this stuff isn't that exact of a science.

In terms of the Electoral College, I'm carrying nine states with 109 electoral votes in the toss up category: Florida (27), Iowa (7), Minnesota (10), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10). While all nine of these states are very close, one might put a feather on Bush's side of the scale in Iowa and Wisconsin, and while Kerry may have the same sliver of an edge in Pennsylvania. But Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio look absolutely even.

Michigan has gotten much closer, but Kerry seems ahead, as he is in Maine and Oregon. Maine, however, splits its electoral votes, and President Bush has a chance of picking off the 2nd congressional district. Colorado, which does not look likely to pass the constitutional amendment to create proportional allocation of its electoral vote, is leaning toward Bush, along with North Carolina, which has gotten closer, and West Virginia. All in all, Bush leads in 26 states with 222 electoral votes, 48 shy of what's needed to win. Kerry is ahead in 16 states with 207 votes, 63 short of the 270 needed to prevail.

Having gone through all of that, I still think it is a fool's errand to try to out-smart the Electoral College. If the margin on Election Day is more than one percentage point, then the electoral vote will follow the popular vote. But if the margin is less than a point, then it means that there are a bunch of states, roughly a half-dozen, that will be basically tied, and no poll, particularly given the lousy quality of most state-level, news media-sponsored polls, can tell you who will win those.

Five states were decided in 2000 by a half-percentage point or less. No poll can tell you who will win those. No poll could tell you who was going to win Florida, which Bush won by 537 votes, or New Mexico, which Gore carried by 366 votes. Anybody lucky enough to pick the precise outcome of the last half-dozen or so states in this election shouldn't be wasting their time on politics -- they should be playing the Powerball lottery.

But as a political handicapper, it is the uncertainties that haunt me in this race. There are massive, unprecedented numbers of new people registering to vote -- we don't really know who these people are, if they will vote and if so, for whom. We see extraordinary levels of interest being shown on the part of the sporadic, infrequent voters -- the folks that haven't shown up for a presidential election since 1992, for example -- so who are they and how will they vote? There are truly uniquely high levels of interest among young voters, a term that is normally an oxymoron, with 74 percent of college students nationwide telling pollsters for Harvard's Institute of Politics that they have discussed the election in the preceding 24 hours. The biggest controversy on campus when I was in school was when the pub was raising the price of beer from 25 cents to 35 cents per glass.

Finally, there is the issue of cell phones, with estimates ranging from as low as five or six percent to as high as eight or nine percent of all individual telephone subscribers having only cell phones and no land lines. It is against the law for a pollster to call a cell phone. While that means a large number of young people aren't being included in these poll samples, it is also true that pre-paid cell phones are rapidly becoming the primary way in which low-income people get telephone service, as many cannot qualify for the credit check required to get a land line.

Between the inadequacies of even the best survey research in really close races and these other factors, people can hope who will win this presidential race, but nobody really knows the outcome.

The Senate In the fight for the Senate, the odds still favor Republicans retaining their majority, but Democrats have expanded the playing field by a seat, which may improve their chances. Democrats are certain to lose their open seat in Georgia, while their four other open seats and the race in South Dakota are all too close to call.

Every time it seems that Republican Rep. Jim DeMint appears on the verge of putting away the open seat in South Carolina, he sticks his foot, ankle and much of his leg down his throat, tightening the margin and forcing the National Republican Senatorial Committee to go back on the air to help drag him across the finish line. Given the state's strong Republican tilt, DeMint has the slimmest of advantages over Democrat Inez Tenenbaum, but this race should have been over weeks ago.

In North Carolina, GOP Rep. Richard Burr appears to be ever-so-slightly ahead of investment banker and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, thanks to the small Republican advantage in the state. Still, there is little question that Bowles has been the better candidate and run the better campaign. Republican worries over Burr's micromanagement of his campaign have made for a more difficult race than it should have been, but the recently passed tobacco buy-out legislation has given him a boost. Although this race isn't over, put a thumb on the scale for Burr.

There is no question that Republican Rep. David Vitter of Louisiana is exceeding all expectations, particularly mine, and is lapping both of his principal Democratic rivals, Rep. Chris John and state Treasurer John Kennedy, in the state's unique open primary. By most conservative estimates, Vitter is averaging in the mid-40s, while John and Kennedy are each around 20 percent. Democrats went to DEFCON 1 a couple of weeks ago when polls warned that Vitter was in range of reaching the required 50 percent necessary on Nov. 2 to avoid a Dec. 4 runoff. National Democrats ramped up their attacks on Vitter weeks earlier than they had expected.

Kennedy has been a better candidate than most expected (myself included), while Chris John has been something of an under-performer. Having said that, it is interesting to note that the very same polls showing Vitter with more initial support than Chris John and John Kennedy combined also indicate that Vitter picks up very little additional support in runoff match-ups. Both Democrats pick up a clear majority of the other's support in a runoff contest. In short, it is not accidental that no Republican has ever been elected to the Senate in Louisiana, that 11 of the 12 statewide officials are Democrats and that Republicans have won the governorship only under unusual circumstances.

Still, it would be a mistake to underestimate Vitter in this race, given his already impressive performance. A runoff will be very close.

The Florida contest between Democrat Betty Castor, a former state education commissioner and former president of the University of South Florida, and Republican Mel Martinez, President Bush's former Housing secretary, is basically tied. Many believe the outcome will be as close as the presidential contest and will be dictated by which side gets their voters to the polls.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, meanwhile, is in the fight of his political life against 2002 GOP Senate nominee and former Rep. John Thune. Recent polls are split on who is ahead, but this is another race that will be won on the ground.

In terms of Democratic shots at picking up Republican seats, appointed incumbent Lisa Murkowski in Alaska looks to be in pretty tough shape. It's not over and it is certainly better to be a Republican than a Democrat in that state, but very few polls have ever shown her ahead of Democratic former Gov. Tony Knowles. While it remains a very close race, it looks tough for her.

The race in Colorado between Democratic state Attorney General Ken Salazar and Republican Pete Coors is close, but it appears that Salazar has a tiny edge going into the final week. Like North Carolina, the normal advantage afforded Republican candidates seems diminished this year, and Coors is just now getting the hang of being a candidate. It's not over, but put a thumb on the scale for Democrats.

Expectations that Republican former Rep. Tom Coburn would self-destruct in the open-seat contest in Oklahoma have not come to pass. While Coburn has made some unusual and unconstructive statements, the NRSC helped him retool his campaign and the candidate has largely behaved himself, giving him a slim advantage over Democratic Rep. Brad Carson. This race isn't over, but the political demographics tilt slightly in Republicans' favor.

Finally, there is Kentucky, the newest addition to the list of toss up races. Democratic physician and state Sen. Daniel Mongiardo has pulled within single digits of Republican incumbent Jim Bunning. Democrats' enemy is time and whether the race tightened too late to get Mongiardo over the top. Give the edge to Bunning, but this race is definitely not a done deal.

For Democrats to capture a majority in the Senate, they have to win six out of these last nine really close contests and win the presidential race (with the vice president breaking the tie), or seven out of nine if President Bush is re-elected. This is a tall order, but the addition of Kentucky to the list improves their odds a bit.

The House Thanks to a combination of Texas redistricting, a small number of open seats to defend, and just a handful of truly vulnerable incumbents, House Republicans are poised to hold their majority for the fifth election in a row. The only question now is just what the margin will look like on Nov. 3.

Still, House Democrats do have some significant opportunities. First, outside of Texas, where Democrats could lose as many as six seats (though insiders see Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards holding on to his 17th District, giving Republicans a total of five seats), Democratic incumbents look relatively comfortable. The one exception is Rep. Baron Hill in southern Indiana, whom insiders on both sides are eyeing as a potential upset. Republicans are hitting Hill on his votes on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, arguing that he is "out of the mainstream" and "too liberal for Indiana," a message that may resonate in this culturally conservative district. Still, Hill has survived tough campaigns before and has put down some roots in this district.

Democrats also have fewer open seat races in jeopardy than do Republicans. Today, Democrats have three open seats in danger: Kentucky-04 (Ken Lucas), Lousiana-07 (Chris John) and Missouri-05 (Karen McCarthy), which is a new addition. By the numbers, Missouri-05 should not even be in play -- after all, McCarthy never took less than 57 percent of the vote, and Gore got 60 percent vote here in 2000. But GOP nominee Jeanne Patterson has already poured close to $3 million of her own money into the race, pummeling former Kansas City Mayor Emanuel Cleaver on ethical issues. A recent Kansas City Star poll put Cleaver at 46 percent and Patterson at 41 percent.

Republicans, on the other hand, have four open seats in the toss-up category: Colorado-03 (Scott McInnis), Louisiana-03 (Billy Tauzin), New York-27 (Jack Quinn) and Washington-08 (Jennifer Dunn). But also on the watch list are Pennsylvania-08 (Jim Greenwood) and Virginia-02 (Ed Schrock).

Republican incumbents in the most trouble: Rob Simmons and Chris Shays in Connecticut, where the partisan, polarized political environment may take its toll on these "red" incumbents sitting in a "blue" state. New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson also has a very tight rematch race on her hands in the Albuquerque-based 1st district. The intense focus on New Mexico as a battleground state in the presidential election could have a significant impact on the race. Georgia Republican Max Burns, the freshman with the biggest target on his head after his improbable win in this heavily Democratic seat in 2002, is also considered vulnerable. Still, in recent days, insiders on both sides seem to be moving away from earlier assumptions that this race was in the bag for Democrat John Barrow. Also in trouble is Phil Crane in Illinois' 8th district, who has been pushed back on his heels not just by his Democratic opponent Melissa Bean, but also by an Illinois press corps that has kept a laser-lik e focus on what would normally be a backburner congressional contest.

Where the two parties disagree is in Minnesota-06, where GOP Rep. Mark Kennedy is either tied with Democrat Patty Wetterling or has a double-digit lead, and North Carolina-11, where GOP Rep. Charlie Taylor is either in a statistical dead heat with Democratic Buncombe County Commissioner Patsy Keever or enjoys a comfortable lead.

With so much uncertainty about what turn-out will look like on Nov. 2, districts and incumbents that look comfortable on paper today may find themselves in much tighter predicaments. Still, the two party committees seem focused on ensuring that none of their incumbents fall through the cracks. Today, it looks like the range for House control falls somewhere between Democrats picking up three to five seats to Republicans picking up one or two seats.

What about Colorado? Isn't it a state that splits the electoral votes, and doesn't that increase the change of a variety of "tied vote" scenarios?

<h1></h1> <h2>The biggest worrywart -- Mark Halperin, writing The Note political column at ABC.com -- found four other 'nightmare scenarios' besides wheeling West Virginia around, to plop into conversation, here.</h2> <h2>What is the rank order of these variables in terms of the likelihood they will affect who wins the White House: Maine's Second Congressional District; West Virginia's potentially faithless elector; Arkansas' electoral votes; Hawaii's electoral votes; and Colorado's ballot measure that would retroactively change the state's electoral college vote distribution system?</h2>

Myself, I don't think it is going to be close enough that any of these matter. The poll numbers are being jimmied, which is quite a trick. Rove has really outdone himself this time. Even with the polling place cheating and crimes, I think it is going to be too lopsided for Kerry that they can't even steal votes for Dumbo. The big zero.

cc, I liked your Pledge of Allegiance snippet as far as you took it, but I think you left out the most important part. Think of it like a contract. You pay allegiance. It delivers 'liberty and justice for all.' Whether 'it' is a republic, democracy, commune, cell, whatever -- that's not part of the deal. The deal is allegiance to one nation with liberty and justice for all. If 'it' vacates its responsibility and fails to maintain liberty and justice, you are not bound to yours.

<h1></h1>

Hey Kari - this post was mentioned in today's Charleston Daily Mail! (It's the conservative counterpart to the more liberal Charleston Gazette.)

Here's the link:

http://www.dailymail.com/news/Opinion/200411014/

The choice quote: "That publication [BlueOregon] hopes Robb will upset the apple cart and swing his vote to John Kerry."

(They accidentally called it "Oregon Blue" at the end, but they got it right the first time.)

Once again, my worlds collide.