Scouting the Landscape

More than two-thirds of the states permit people to vote early. In some states, people have already started casting their votes.

The process of actually choosing the next president, the next vice president, and the next Congress has begun and it will continue for the next four weeks.

I made my first prediction in the Obama-McCain campaign in June, just after Hillary Clinton had conceded and no one knew who the running mates would be in either party. At that time, I predicted McCain would receive 295 electoral votes and Obama would receive 243 electoral votes.

Just over a month ago, on Labor Day, I wrote a follow-up prediction that basically affirmed what I had predicted earlier — except that I moved the state of Michigan into the Democratic column. That made my prediction McCain 278 electoral votes, Obama 260 votes.

I'll stand by that one. From what I've been reading, McCain's campaign has given up on Michigan. Advertising dollars are being pulled out of Michigan and moved to areas where McCain's campaign believes they can be more efficiently spent.

Today — exactly four weeks before Election Day — I am prepared to amend my prediction a little more. It might change again before the election. It might even change tonight — depending on what each candidate says in the debate.

For quite awhile, I've heard that Colorado was too close to call. It's a state that has voted Republican in nine of the last 10 presidential elections. Until recently, I have believed it would continue to vote Republican. But lately I'm getting the impression the Democrats may be able to win there this time. I think it will be close. It's been close before. But I think the Democrats are positioned to win that state.

I've heard of other states — Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Missouri — that are considered too close to call. Some of the recent polls suggest that Obama has slim leads in those states. But I'm not convinced that any of them will vote for the Democrat. Not yet. Check back with me in the next four weeks.

Shifting Colorado to the Democrats' column leaves us with a 269-269 tie — assuming that all my predictions are correct and none of the congressional districts in Nebraska and Maine vote for someone other than the candidate who wins the state. If that happens — based on state laws — an elector could be required to vote against the wishes of the rest of the state.

Those representational laws haven't been factors before, but, in a close race, they could become extremely important.

For that matter, as far as I know, there are no laws that require electors to vote the way a state's residents vote on Election Day. The assumption is that a winner-take-all system exists in most states, but that is not binding.

That has given rise to what has become known as the "faithless elector," in which an elector votes for someone other than the person who actually carried the state.

In the past, faithless electors have been rare — and none have changed the outcome.

If the election results leave us with a tie on paper, there probably will be a lot of maneuvering and manipulating behind the scenes as both sides try to sway electors from the other side before they cast their votes in December.

And, if neither side is able to exceed 270 electoral votes, the decision will go to the House of Representatives. The Democrats hold the majority in the House today, and that majority is expected to increase in November.

But, if the House is called upon to decide the next president, each state receives one vote. A state that has one at-large representative will have just as much influence on the decision as the largest state — California — in which 53 representatives will decide who receives the state's vote.

That could set up some dramatic decisions in some states. For example, in my home state of Arkansas, three of the state's four members of the House are Democrats. But Republican McCain is expected to win by a wide margin there. How would the three Democrats vote if the decision becomes theirs to make? Will they honor the wishes of their state's voters, or will they support their party's nominee — especially if he seems to be the choice of voters nationwide?

To win in the House, a candidate must receive the support of a majority of the states.

In spite of what I hear being reported in the polls and what I see happening in the economy — and in spite of the fact that the war continues to be unpopular — I'm not persuaded (as some people seem to be) that enough people will break lifelong voting habits to give Obama a landslide victory.

I'm not even convinced that his lead is really as large as the polls suggest. Until the votes prove otherwise, I believe many people are telling pollsters they support Obama because it is considered the politically correct thing to say, but when they're alone in the voting booth, they will pull a different lever or mark a different box.

But the bad news continues to be heaped on the Republican Party. And the cumulative effect makes it increasingly difficult for demographic groups that have been supporting McCain to continue to do so.

The party in power takes the blame when things turn sour — even if the other party played a role. That's the way it is.

While we could debate almost endlessly each party's complicity in the financial crisis and the war, the Republicans bear the brunt of the blame because a Republican has occupied the Oval Office since 2001 and Republicans controlled the Congress from 1995 to 2007.

There are four weeks left in the campaign, with Obama and McCain scheduled to debate each other tonight and next Wednesday. A lot can happen. A month ago, the economy wasn't good, but it was better than it is today. Clearly, Republicans hope the bailout will make things look better four weeks from now.

If that happens, will that be enough to turn the tide?