Slashdot Mirror
2000 Election with Proportional Electoral Votes
Trillian_1138 writes "I just finished hammering out a quick analyzation of the US 2000 Presidential Election and thought Slashdot might find it interesting. Specifically, what if all states had used a proportional assignment of electoral votes, in stead of the present all-or-nothing assignment most states use? Well, here's what I found. In the end, if every state had assigned their electoral votes in a proportional fashion, Bush would have defeated Gore in 2000, 259.008 to 253.077. The system I used allowed for percentages of votes, which is very unlikely to happen, but I still think the results are interesting. Check it out, and please let me know what you think. I'm not sure if having the electoral college AND proportional assignment of votes defeats the intention of the Electoral College in the first place, and the current Electoral College system does ensure one candidate must win a majority of Electoral votes, which the system I made would fail to meet. Oh well..."
Actually, as reported yesterday on WUOM (Stateside - audio archive) yesterday it is possible to have a tie in the electoral college. There are two states that do not vote as a block - one allocates two votes to the state leader, and three votes to three congressional districts. The other is similar with only two congressional districts.
When a tie happens the House of representaives votes (1 vote per state) to elect the president. If they tie then the Senate chooses a president to serve until the House comes into agreement. I can't remember the details completely, somehow the vice president candidates are involved (perhaps these are chosen to serve temporarily?)
In the last election it would have taken only two specific states changing places to cause a tie.
-Adam
Here is 2000
Gore Congressional Districts: 207
Gore States: 19 (x2) -> : 38
Gore Total: 245
Bush Congressional Districts: 228
Bush States: 31 (x2) -> : 62
Bush Total: 290
This give the same win but even a larger electoral margin for Bush than his 271 - 266 Result. The two lost electoal votes are from distcits that were too close to call (1 in Fl, and 1 in Tenn).
source: District Map
It would be a really bad idea, solely because the House of Reps is incredibly gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, which means the congressional districts are as well. The House is supposed to reflect the population. In 2000, the popular vote went to Gore. But Bush won the congressional districts 239-196. Bush would have won 2000 by a landslide.
Colorado's system isn't by congressional district, it's proportional, except it doesn't allow fractional EVs. Overall it's also a bad idea for states to adopt this approach just because of the mathematics of it. If one large state adopts the same scheme, then third party candidates get EVs easily, which means it would be much more likely for no one to reach 270 votes, which means the elections would much more likely go to the House of Reps, which, again, is gerrymandered by the Republicans...
Gerrymandering is a huge problem.
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
what about presidents that pander to city people by talking about health-care, social security?
besides, what makes you think rural people dont need health-care and social secrity? just so you know, rural areas have cops, industrial workers, institutions of higher learning and the possibility of terroism. just not at the same scale as large cities.
apparently only idiots come from rural areas. idiots like: tom brokaw, frank lloyd wright, dick cheney and oh yeah, bill clinton
always mosh clockwise