4 ms·

Except, in the extreme example I cited from the article: "Obama has 255 ways" and "Romney has 1 way" At that point, Romney had to win every remaining state to

Except, in the extreme example I cited from the article: "Obama has 255 ways" and "Romney has 1 way" At that point, Romney had to win every remaining state to win. Florida was no more important than any other state that still hadn't declared a result. Whatever one came next would determine the result. I'd also argue that the point you're making is obscured by this image. There's no way of determining from that image how many electors each state contributes, just lots of arrows and a red/blue outcome. IMHO, how it was actually shown on news programs today is much clearer than what the article is proposing.

LegionMammal978 2y ago
> At that point, Romney had to win every remaining state to win. Florida was no more important than any other state that still hadn't declared a result. Whatever one came next would determine the result. When that diagram was created, the election hadn't even started yet, so they didn't know who would actually win Florida. The 1/255 number was contingent on Romney losing Florida (i.e., it was a hypothetical outcome the user could click through). But when they didn't know yet who would win Florida, it was still 76 ways for Romney and 431 ways for Obama. Anyway, Florida was very important for the result regardless of the chronological order. Suppose that Florida's result was called first, in favor of Obama. Then one more state for Obama would seal the election in his favor, and everyone could call it a day and go home. On the other end, suppose that Florida's result was called last, and Obama won at least one state beforehand, but not too many. Then everyone would have to wait for Florida in order to know the overall outcome: its result would be absolutely necessary. > There's no way of determining from that image how many electors each state contributes, just lots of arrows and a red/blue outcome. Well, if people really wanted to work out the math by hand, they could look it up. But states are called one at a time, so people are naturally interested in 'subsets of states' that can singlehandedly seal the election one way or the other.

LegionMammal978 2y ago

> At that point, Romney had to win every remaining state to win. Florida was no more important than any other state that still hadn't declared a result. Whatever one came next would determine the result. When that diagram was created, the election hadn't even started yet, so they didn't know who would actually win Florida. The 1/255 number was contingent on Romney losing Florida (i.e., it was a hypothetical outcome the user could click through). But when they didn't know yet who would win Florida, it was still 76 ways for Romney and 431 ways for Obama. Anyway, Florida was very important for the result regardless of the chronological order. Suppose that Florida's result was called first, in favor of Obama. Then one more state for Obama would seal the election in his favor, and everyone could call it a day and go home. On the other end, suppose that Florida's result was called last, and Obama won at least one state beforehand, but not too many. Then everyone would have to wait for Florida in order to know the overall outcome: its result would be absolutely necessary. > There's no way of determining from that image how many electors each state contributes, just lots of arrows and a red/blue outcome. Well, if people really wanted to work out the math by hand, they could look it up. But states are called one at a time, so people are naturally interested in 'subsets of states' that can singlehandedly seal the election one way or the other.