A few points to make sure we're all on a level playing field:
First: It is true that Texas's 34 electors are selected at the state's Democratic and Republican party conventions. The 34 electoral votes equal 32 federal Representatives and two Senators.
What we actually vote on come Election Day is that slate of electors. But wait; there's more. A Republican electorate must vote for the Democratic nominee if the state's popular vote is in his favor. This is a place I believe facts have been misconstrued or misinterpreted. More on this below.
Yep; it's a two-party thing. That's just a fact. I'm not saying more opportunity shouldn't be available for a third party but, 10 days away from the election, it is what it is. The time to change things is not when straws are being drawn to see who survives.
Actually, independent candidates--even expectant write-ins--send their lists of 34 selected electors to the Texas Secretary of State at the same time the major parties' conventions do. I don't know if this list of electors has ever been exercised.
Second: Some posts here make it sound as if the 34 electoral votes in Texas are at the discretion of the individual electors, or are driven by party affiliation.
They are not. Other than Nebraska and Maine, state regulations or laws mandate that all of a given state's electoral votes be cast for the candidate who wins the greatest number of popular votes. In Texas, that's §192.005 of the Election Code.
Let me restate that: By law, all 34 Texas electors must vote for the candidate who receives the greatest number of popular votes.
It's all or nothing. The count of the popular vote is the determining factor, and the margins of the popular vote can be very small. For example, if I remember correctly, Gore claimed New Mexico in 2000 by fewer than 400 popular votes.
Think about it.
Third: It's been stated as absolute fact that Texas is a foregone conclusion: 34 electoral votes for McCain. Done deal: nothing can change that.
There can be only two sources of information from which to derive this dangerous (IMHO) assumption: recent state political history and poll results.
To the former point: If you're under 35 or so, you don't remember anything but a Republican Texas. Fact is, Texas has been staunchly Democrat far longer than it's been Republican. The first Republican Governor of Texas in over 100 years, since the Reconstruction, was Bill Clements, elected in 1978. He was defeated by Democrat Mark White in '82, but came back to win again 1986. The Republican Party in Texas really came into its current position of strength around 1984 when we saw Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Phil Gramm on ballots.
So, in truth, Texas has been strongly Republican for only the past 24 or so years. A very short time.
Now here we are facing a financial crisis the likes of which the country hasn't experienced since the Great Depression.
We have a sitting Republican President with (unfairly, I think) some of the lowest approval ratings in U.S. history (Gallup pegged Bush at a 25% approval rating in October, just three points higher than Truman in 1952).
We have the largest recent-immigrant population, by total number, in the history of the State of Texas. See the story a few weeks ago where the U.S. Census Bureau published its estimate: one in three households in the Greater Houston Metropolitan Area speak Spanish as the primary language at home.
I'll add here my opinion that legal immigration is to be encouraged and appreciated.
Given the facts of today's environment, I'd say our short hold on Republican dominance is very much in jeopardy. Our position November 4 is tenuous. It certainly is not a foregone conclusion.
Fourth: Election polls are more prevalent and accessible than at any time in history, and citizens don't scrutinize them with the level of analysis and skepticism needed. I posted about this on another Topic. To risk annoying The Annoyed Man
with repetition...Opinion polls are an art, not a science. All of statistics is based on extracting the most accurate assumptions without having available complete data from the entire possible universe of targets. The key word is "assumption" because polls and surveys have to work with only a portion, a sample, of that total universe.
In fact, when polls report their "margin of error" (e.g., plus or minus 4%), they really take into account only sampling error, because of the four major types of survey errors that's the only one that can sufficiently be quantified. The other biggie sources of errors are coverage error, measurement error, and non-response error. In the instance of Presidential polling, I'd point to coverage error and non-response error as the non-quantifiable factors that offer the greatest chance for inaccuracy.
Pre-election polls serve valuable purposes, but I wish they weren't as prevalent. Remember when, in October of 2004, Newsweek polls had 47% of the vote for Kerry, 45% for Bush, and 2% for Nader?
These are opinion polls, random surveys, and they have a very real potential to mislead and to affect voter behavior.
The last poll results I saw for Texas (Rasmussen, October 23, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... index.html) showed McCain ahead by 10 points. As things go, that's a respectable lead. But does it mean a McCain/Palin win is a foregone conclusion? Absolutely not.
All it would take for a Republican loss in Texas is for a healthy number of Republicans and Libertarians to assume the state is done-deal Red, and either stay home or vote for an independent candidate or a write-in.
Then bingo, NObama could walk away with 34 electoral votes by a very slim margin...for example, by less than 400 popular votes, like New Mexico in 2000.
Think about it.