Slashdot Mirror

If a president-elect dies AFTER the electoral college, the VP becomes president and picks a new VP who is confirmed by Congress.

On the other hand, if the president-elect were to die between election Tuesday and the electoral college, things get much more interesting. The electoral college would choose (at least initially) but state laws limit their choices. State laws which bind electors but don't account for death make it tricky. Likely, the VP-elect would become president (Pence in this case), and the LOSING VP candidate (Tim Kaine) would become VP.
http://presidentelect.org/art_...

Blue used to be Republican and red was Democrat. All very strange.

It was always an incumbent/challenger thing until some socialists found it opportunistic to rail against the stupid people living in 'red states', meaning they voted Republican, and the mediasphere has played along with that since.

Yes, I remember the Reagan/Mondale map looking like this on TV.

In 2000, the Democrats had the White House, so Bush was the Red/challenger.

More importantly, it plays to the base tribal instincts that the Democratic/Republican parties use to vilify each other.

We can argue what the statistics ultimately mean, but the fact remains that (according to my spreadsheet using as sources 1999 and 1790) the standard deviation of population distribution in 1790 was a whopping 5.23%, while in 1999 it was only 2.2%. This means there was an even wider spread of populations in 1790 than in 1999.

So you can argue that power is allocated disproportionately concerning population, but you cannot argue truthfully that the population is more disproportionate now than it was at the time the Constitution was written.*

In the election of 1792, there were 132 electoral votes available to a population of 3,741,110 (based on the 1790 census cited in your link above, subtracting out the populations of Maine, West Virginia, and Tennessee since they didn't cast electoral ballots). That's about 28,342
  people per elector, whereas today, each elector represents (as a national average) about 565,167 people.

This is relevant, because several states have populations FAR smaller than 1,695,500, which is the number of people proportionally represented by 3 electoral votes (the minimum number a state can have). That was true then, also, but not to such a large degree; there were five states with populations lower than 85,025, but the smallest of them (little Rhode Island) only had an overrepresentation factor of 1.6, whereas today, Wyoming's is 3.2. (That is the "average" population per electoral vote nationwide, divided by the population per electoral vote in the state... numbers greater than 1 show overrepresentation; numbers less than 1 show underrepresentation vis a vis the ideal scenario.)

The lowest overrepresentation factor in the 2008 election was Texas, at .789; in the 1792 election, it was Maryland at .709... HOWEVER, Maryland had four available electoral votes which were not cast. Had they cast them, their representation factor would have been 1.03 (taking into account how that changes the total electoral votes available).

Now I'm curious, and I'm going to recalculate all the 1792 numbers with the uncast but available EVs... just six more, four for Maryland and 2 for Vermont, but how does this change the numbers? Let's see...

Ok, now, the magic number (3x the population per EV) is 81,328.48, and only three states fall below it. Virginia's overrep factor is .823, and that's the lowest; they're doing way better than Texas these days. The highest overrep factor is Vermont, with 1.587.

So, in spite of the higher standard deviation, the far, far lower number of people per elector makes for a far more equitable distribution of electoral votes.

Citation: http://www.presidentelect.org/e1792.html for 1792 electoral votes cast.

Totally wrong. Look up Electoral College.

There are a number of presidents that did not get a majority of the popular vote but did become president (Billy boy Clinton in '92 AND '96).

  http://www.presidentelect.org/e1992.html
  http://www.presidentelect.org/e1996.html

Plus you have the 2000 problem where W Bush did not even take the plurality (fewer % popular vote than second place) but took the overall election due to the electoral system.

And if you don't like it, push for a constitutional amendment. Don't bitch on /.

Totally wrong. Look up Electoral College.

There are a number of presidents that did not get a majority of the popular vote but did become president (Billy boy Clinton in '92 AND '96).

  http://www.presidentelect.org/e1992.html
  http://www.presidentelect.org/e1996.html

Plus you have the 2000 problem where W Bush did not even take the plurality (fewer % popular vote than second place) but took the overall election due to the electoral system.

And if you don't like it, push for a constitutional amendment. Don't bitch on /.

2008 is looking more and more like 1984.

I don't know that there is a Republican around right now who could pull this off.

Unless, of course, the Dems run another milquetoast like Mondale.

(The Dems are too afraid of people like Dean to let them run...and that's why they lose)

• 1996 - Clinton won 49% to 40%, 379 to 159 electoral college votes. Now you can argue that it was thrown off by Perot, but you cannot say that it was in the statistical margin.
• 1992 - Clinton won 42% to 37%, 370 to 168 EC voltes. Again, Perot threw things off, but again, clearly outide the statistical margin.
• 1988 - Bush Sr. won, 53% to 45%, 426 to 111 EC votes. Not close.
• 1984 - Reagan won 58% to 40%, 525 to 13 EC votes - a landslide.

• 1996 - Clinton won 49% to 40%, 379 to 159 electoral college votes. Now you can argue that it was thrown off by Perot, but you cannot say that it was in the statistical margin.
• 1992 - Clinton won 42% to 37%, 370 to 168 EC voltes. Again, Perot threw things off, but again, clearly outide the statistical margin.
• 1988 - Bush Sr. won, 53% to 45%, 426 to 111 EC votes. Not close.
• 1984 - Reagan won 58% to 40%, 525 to 13 EC votes - a landslide.

Another site that is probably somewhat less scientific, but is doing a similar analysis is http://presidentelect.org/e2004.html.

The electoral college has really only played a minor role in filtering the will of the people into a result for who ends up being US President. ("Minor" meaning situations where popular and electoral votes don't exactly reflect each other, while "Major" means mass chaos in the electoral system of the sort that would be akin to what the EU ministers did.)

However, electors *have* cast votes for a different candidate than the one they were expected to vote for. Tennessee in 1948 is one example.

See here or here for more details.

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Then, it appears to be permissible for the state legislature to appoint the electors. But note that it states that the legislature directs the manner in which they are selected, not the selection itself.

I did a quick web search and found this web site that provides a table of how the electors are chosen in the various states: How States and Parties Choose Electors. Just click on the table if you have javascript enabled on your browser.

From the table, it appears that only Wisconsin leaves the selection of electors up to the "Legislators & candidates". And the Democratic Party electors in California are chosen by Democrats running in the U.S. House and Senate races to choose the electors.

The electors in most states are chosen by the party's state convention or by the party.

The table seems to be from a 1983 publication. There has undoubtedly been some changes since then.

A little more searching finds this more up to date web page: Which electors are bound?. According to it, states (and DC) binding electors to vote for their pledged candidates are Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. So, 26 states and the District of Columbia bind their electors.

But note that it also says:

Keep in mind that just because a state has a law requiring an elector to vote a certain way does not mean the elector must do so. People break the law all the time, and a would-be faithless elector could change his vote and just face the consequences. However, no faithless elector has ever been punished for his vote. In North Carolina, South Carolina, and Michigan, faithless electors are replaced before their vote can be sent to Congress.

BTW, how come you people don't scream that 1/2 of the voters didn't vote for Clinton either? He didn't get a majority of the votes.

However, he DID get more votes than any other candidate.