From TheBestLinks.com
This article deals with a current or ongoing event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
The U.S. presidential election of 2004 is scheduled to occur on Election Day, Tuesday, November 2, 2004. After formal election by the U.S. Electoral College on December 13, the winner will be inaugurated to a four-year term as President of the United States on January 20, 2005.
The entire House of Representatives (435 members) and approximately one-third of the Senate (34 of 100 members) are also elected. See the U.S. House election, 2004 and the U.S. Senate election, 2004 for more information.
Results
Detailed results by state are also available
Presidential Candidates (Alphabetical, by Political Party)
This list includes all candidates who will be on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning a majority in the Electoral College plus, tentatively Ralph Nader, who may or may not meet this criterion, sorted by the number of state ballots the candidate/party is on. For a more complete list of candidates, including those of minor parties and those who did not receive their party's nominations, see List of candidates in the U.S. presidential election, 2004.
The Constitution Party nominated Michael Peroutka for president on 25 Jun 2004 and Chuck Baldwin for vice president on 26 Jun 2004. Roy Moore did not attend the convention.
As of this writing, the Peroutka/Baldwin ticket will be on the ballot in up to 38 states. The possibility exists that the party will be able to qualify for ballot access in up to 41 states by the election.
On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington, D.C. and former primary election opponents, U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts accumulated the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination. The Democratic National Committee's website acknowledged him as the party's nominee at that time, almost three months prior to the party convention. If something happens to Kerry before the election, the DNC will likely be the main body involved in choosing an alternate nominee—most likely Kerry's running mate, U.S. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, announced on July 6. Senators Kerry and Edwards were formally nominated by the Democratic Party at the July 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.
The Kerry/Edwards ticket will be on the ballot in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.
For details, see John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004.
The candidate of the Green Party, chosen on the second ballot at the national convention of the Green Party of the United States on June 25, 2004 is David Cobb; the party's vice-presidential candidate is Pat LaMarche.
As of this writing, the Cobb/LaMarche ticket will be on the ballot in 26 states, plus the District of Columbia. The possibility exists that the party will be able to qualify for ballot access in up to 33 states (plus D.C.) by the election.
Michael Badnarik was nominated by delegates to the Libertarian Party National Convention on May 30, 2004 in Atlanta, Georgia. In the closest presidential race in Libertarian Party history, Badnarik beat Talk radio host Gary Nolan and Emmy and Tony award-winning producer Aaron Russo on the third ballot. The three candidates were separated by only handful of votes on the first two ballots.
The candidates debated each other at various state Libertarian Party conventions leading up to the national convention. The debate held at the Libertarian Party of California convention (this year March 12-14 in San Jose) was aired by C-SPAN and PBS. State parties often conduct non-binding straw polls following their debate and may then vote to endorse a candidate. However, as is normal practice, delegates to the national convention voted freely for the candidate of their choice.
Badnarik and running mate, Richard Campagna, will be on the ballo in 48 states and the District of Columbia, the largest ballot count for any 3rd party. The Libertarian party failed to make ballot acess in New Hampshire and Oklahoma.
For details, see Michael Badnarik presidential campaign, 2004 and U.S. Libertarian Party presidential nomination, 2004.
Ralph Nader (Reform Party or Independent)
Ralph Nader will appear on the 2004 presidential ballot in several states as the Reform Party candidate and in several states as an independent. In other states he will not be a candidate because he has not met the requirements in those states for ballot access. He was endorsed by the Reform party; however, the Reform Party had earlier split into mulitple parties, and in many states what used to be the Reform Party is now the America First Party, which does not endorse Nader.
As of September 15, 2004, Nader will be on the ballot in 34 states. The possibility exists that Nader will be able to qualify for ballot access in up to 37 states by the election.
On September 18, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Nader be included on the ballot in Florida for the upcoming U.S. presidential election. The court rejected arguments that the Reform Party did not meet the requirements of the Florida election code for access to the ballot — that the party must be a "national party" and that it must have nominated its candidate in a "national convention" — and therefore Nader should have attempted to file as an independent candidate. Specifically, the court ruled that the term "national party" must be interpreted as broadly as possible. Florida is a swing state that was the subject of much controversy in the previous election.
On March 9, U.S. President George W. Bush officially clinched the number of delegates needed to be nominated at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Bush accepted the nomination on September 2, 2004 and selected Vice President Richard B. Cheney as his running mate.
The Bush/Cheney ticket will be on the ballot in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.
For details, see George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination, 2004.
Timeline
See U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline
Debates
See U.S. presidential election debates, 2004
Three presidential debates have been scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates:
- September 30 at the University of Miami, with questions from moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS. Topics will be foreign policy and homeland security.
- October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, in a town-hall format moderated by Charles Gibson of ABC.
- October 13 at Arizona State University, with questions from moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS. Topics will be domestic and economic policy.
One vice-presidential debates is scheduled:
Electoral College changes from 2000
The U.S. population is continuously shifting, and some states grow in population faster than others. With the completion of the 2000 census, Congressional re-apportionment took place, moving some representative districts from the slowest growing states to the fastest growing. As a result, some states will send a different number of electors to the U.S. Electoral College, since the number of electors allotted to a state is equal to the sum of the number of Senators and Representatives from that state. Since the results were so close in 2000, this could potentially impact the outcome of the 2004 election.
The following table shows the change in electors from the 2000 election. Red states represent those that Bush won in 2000 and Blue states Gore won. All the states listed use a winner-take-all allocation of electors. If every state was won by the same party that won it in 2000, the Republican Party would receive 278 electoral votes (271 in 2000) and the Democratic Party would receive 260 (267 in 2000, 266 of which voted for Gore (1)).
| Gained votes | Lost votes |
|---|
- Arizona (8→10 +2)
- Florida (25→27 +2)
- Georgia (13→15 +2)
- Texas (32→34 +2)
- California (54→55 +1)
- Colorado (8→9 +1)
- North Carolina (14→15 +1)
- Nevada (4→5 +1)
|
- New York (33→31 -2)
- Pennsylvania (23→21 -2)
- Connecticut (8→7 -1)
- Mississippi (7→6 -1)
- Ohio (21→20 -1)
- Oklahoma (8→7 -1)
- Wisconsin (11→10 -1)
- Illinois (22→21 -1)
- Indiana (12→11 -1)
- Michigan (18→17 -1)
|
(Minor note: The above color coded text of "red" and "blue" may or may not
be confusing, especially due to historical reasons.
All of these previous years show Democrats in red and Republicans in blue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1856
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1996
One year shows Democrats in blue and Republicans in red.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000
As stated earlier, the color code shown above is from year 2000 only.)
Vote Splitting Concerns
Some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry are concerned that the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader could split the vote between the two candidates, thus allowing the Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush to win the 2004 election. Many Democrats blame Ralph Nader for splitting the vote in the 2000 presidential election when he ran as the candidate of the Green Party.
This is possible because most states use plurality elections, which do not require a majority, but rather the highest percentage, even if less than 50% of the total vote, to choose which presidential electors to send to the Electoral College. While Ralph Nader and the Green Party ultimately support replacing the Electoral Collge with direct popular elections, both have also suggested, as a compromise, that states instead use Instant Runoff Voting to select their presidential electors, which would eliminate vote splitting and ensure majority winners.
Opponents of Ralph Nader's candidacy often refer to vote splitting as the spoiler effect. Voters who prefer Ralph Nader's positions over John Kerry's but who plan to vote for John Kerry to avoid splitting the vote claim to be choosing the "lesser of two evils." These voters often use slogans such as, "anybody but Bush," and "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." A group of former Nader supporters (from 2000), who now urge voting for Kerry/Edwards (at least in swing states), have released a statement entitled Vote to Stop Bush.
Battleground states
See 2004 swing state section in Swing states. -
More info on Battleground States (http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109k.htm)
Map courtesy SwingStateProject.com (http://www.swingstateproject.com)
This is a full list of the states considered swing states in the 2004 election by most news organizations.
Professor
Malcolm Mackerras' Pendulum (as of February 2004) for the 2004 US Presidential Election (88kB), predicting Democrat win (287 Electoral College votes)
These states are considered possible swing states, by either the political campaigns or by pollsters.
New during this campaign
Electronic voting
Some states are rushing to have new electronic voting systems operational for the 2004 election. Many security analysts have warned that computer voting terminals have a significant possibility of voter fraud or data corruption by a software attack. Others say that recounts can be nearly impossible with the machines. Proponents of computer voting say that the intent of the voter can be recorded with greater certainty and accuracy than using paper ballots.
Better World Links on Electronic Voting (http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm)
Campaign law changes
The 2004 election is the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill). Because of the act's restrictions on candidates' fundraising, a large number of 527 groups have emerged, which can raise large amounts of money to influence various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, The Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups have been active during the full campaign season. (There was some activity, although much less, during the 2000 campaign.)
To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television must include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually include the statement "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually include the statement "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" and, as of September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads are prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.
See also
External links and references
Official Candidate Websites (Alphabetical, by Last Name)
Official Party Websites (Alphabetical, by Political Party)
Election video archive
Election 2004 link directories
State-by-state forecasts of electoral vote outcome
Election analysis
Election 2004 global debate and voting
Election 2004 protests
Election 2004 news media
News articles
Election campaign funding
Interactives
de:US-Präsidentschaftswahlen 2004
ja:2004年アメリカ合衆国大統領選挙
nl:Presidentsverkiezingen VS 2004 zh:2004年美国总统选举
Related links
Top visited
0 of
0 links
[no links posted yet]
>> place link >>
Discussion
Last posted
0 of
0 messages
[no messages posted yet]
>> post message >>
Watch
You can
add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.
