Why would Bush want to attack somewhere which actually has WMDs, it would be worst than Vietnam for the US "body" count.
We're not afraid of the WMDs. The big issue is that Seoul is so close to the DMZ, and North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces in range and pointed at said city. They don't need WMDs to deter any aggressive action, because they can kill millions with conventional weapons.
Actually, joking aside, the US is more interested in bombing the shit out of North Korea than making any gestures of help for these people.
I know US bashing is ever so popular, but we're donating 50,000 tons of food to North Korea this year. And despite BBC's take on the issue, we've been giving food to North Korea for years. I understand most of it goes to feed Kim's military instead of reaching the people we're trying to help, so it's no wonder we're sending less than we used to.
Now, if the US were at war with N.Korea right now, it would be so politically incorrect to say that.
We are.
The Korean war (1950-1953) ended in an armistice, and not a peace treaty, so the US (and, techincally, the United Nations itself) is still at war with North Korea.
Re:WalMart does outsource
on
Inside Wal-Mart IT
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Since I don't work for Wal-Mart, and my butt was the one 25ft up in the air running cable, I would call this outsourcing.
My guess is they don't consider this IT, they consider it "facilities."
I received the above comment in metamod. It was marked as "flamebait," and I marked that moderation "unfair." I disagree with the author's point, and believe the consequences would be dire--but his comment was pretty interesting and worth reading. It's not flamebait simply because it says something you don't want to hear.
I've never gone back into a discussion when I see a comment in metamod, but this one particularly annoyed me. I realize that it's extremely likely that no one is ever going to see my reply post--but I feel the need to state my position anyway.
Even peace can only work if both sides want peace. After WW2 the european nations more or less decided that there were to be no more wars (on european soil between european nations, the rest of the world was still open season) and because all of them decided it it happened. Even though spain and england have a dispute over the rock of gibraltar. Even though Ireland and England are in dispute. Even though most of the nations have a long long history of war with each other there has been peace
There was peace in post-WW2 Europe because the United States was there to keep the Soviets out--or did you sleep through that period of history known as the Cold War?
But, you are getting something in return: A right to use their software.. ( presumably that is something of value, sometimes its debatable )
So technically it IS a contract..
I gain the right to use their software when I plonk my money down on the counter and leave the store.
Once I install the software, I'm presented with a contract I obstensibly have to agree to in order to make use of what I have just purchased. I receive nothing in return for agreeing to this demand, and, given that no retailer I'm aware of will accept an open box software return, my agreement is made under duress (i.e. if I don't agree, I forfeit my purchase price.)
In addition to the problems above, the vendor making demands on me after the purchase is made seems to violate the doctrine of first sale--of course, IANAL.
I propose you get rid of cars entirely. Its generally accepted that bike and pedestrian friendly communities have a better standard of living than the others.
Thus, public transportation to move between communties, and biking/walking/electric chairs for transportation inside these communities.
It's a nice idea, but some of us don't live in areas of high population concentration, and public transportation is either sparse or completely unavailable. The city I live in has 15,000 people, and is 15 square miles in size. The entire county has 62,000 people and is 622 square miles in size. In such a situation, public transit just doesn't make any kind of sense.
maybe because most people can't stand the ghastly color they give off. maybe the newest flourescents are better (my wife- an architect- is continuously trying to convince me that i wouldn't mind them) but i have yet to see a flourescent light that doesnt make everything look rather sickly.
GE now makes a flourescent bulb in their Soft White line. The color is pretty close to incandescent, although it has a little bit of a green tinge until it warms up completely.
When I replace a bulb in my house, and particularly in areas where the light in question is on more than it's off (porch light, for example) I'm doing so with one of these--they use 1/4th the power as incandescent that provides the same amount of light, and last like 10 times as long. They do cost quite a bit (about 7 bucks each) though.
Uhh, get a clue? In democracies around the world, elections do happen on a regular schedule, usually every 4 years. The current governmnet just gets to schedule the exact date, e.g. here in germany the next election will be in september 2006, and the current government will schedule the exact date.
I wasn't talking about all democracies around the world--such a blanket statement would be absurd--merely those that do things in what I find to be an odd way. Canada, for example. Still, it seems to work for them so who am I to question?
Maybe you should take your own advice and "get a clue" as it were. You seem to be guilty of that crime Europeans love to accuse Americans of--that we think things everywhere else work (or should work) the same way they do at home.
Why don't you just check it? Wikipedia says: Republicans have 50,456,002 votes Democrats have 50,999,897 votes. Nader has 2,882,955 votes
It's not that simple--and if you think it is, you haven't been reading this thread.
It's not one election, it's 51 elections. "Checking it" would require getting the vote totals from all 51 elections, and pro-rating the number of electors based on the percentages for each state. I don't have an hour or two to devote that right now, or I would have.
but that is yet another problem with the American voting system
You're talking about a nation that's been known to shoot dissidents in the head, then bill their families for the cost of the ammunition.
If the images from Tiennamen Square didn't stir a nation to full outright revolution, do you honestly think the removal of a search engine (which has already happened to google in the past, FYI, so it's not like there's no precedent) is going to be a mechanism for change?
But considering the state of our political debate these days, or lack thereof, it hasn't helped do anything except keep the country whole.
This is a recent development, all things considered, and is a result of the current two party system--not defined anywhere in the constitution, but certainly a reality. Elimination of the electoral college won't change that fact--other changes, those that actually level the playing field for third party candidates, are needed instead.
So I stand by my statement that the electoral college has "worked for us." We might actually need to change it once we fix the other problems (imagine 2000 if Nader had won North Dakota) but I think the idea behind it is sound.
So in effect you could say that the united states of america is a republic of democratic states?
Actually, given that each state is set up on similar lines as the overall nation, you could say that we're a republic of republics.:)
how is tha that the united states of america has the illusion of being a beacon of democracy?
What illusion? In general, we hold democratic ideals sacred--sure we do things a little bit differently than everybody else, but our constitution has worked for us for two hundred and fifteen years. It was (rightly) regarded at the dawn of the 19th century to be wonderful and marvelous, a great experiment in freedom. People came here in their millions from old European nations that didn't want them, and they discovered how and why America was great. Slowly, but surely, the rest of the world caught up.
Things certainly have changed over the last fifty years--and recent events are indeed troubling--but if the above isn't the very definition of "beacon of democracy" I don't know what is.
But it makes the people in those tiny states much more powerfull than those of us who live in places where you might actually want to live. If you live in North Dakota, there are only 214K citizens per electoral vote but if you live in PA, there are 585K per electoral vote. So a resident of ND has 2.7 times the voting power for president than I do. How is that fair? It seems to me that it lets the small states walk all over the big states.
I agree that North Dakota is a particularly good illustration of one of the problems the electoral college does have, but the flip side is that the state of Pennsylvania in total has significantly more voting power than North Dakota--just not quite as much as it "should." The system is obviously the result of a compromise, and such a beast can never be perfect. But without compromises like this one, the United States would not have existed at all.
By the way, your complaint is valid against the Senate, as well--but it's even more extreme with 6.14 MILLION citizens in Pennsylvania having the same representation as 316,000 North Dakotans. Just curious (no flame intended) but do you perceive the same basic unfairness here?
Nevermind your personal ideology, do you really think that it is a good thing for the country that the person with the most popular votes in the presidential election does not get elected?... The person with the most votes should win in a democracy (or a republic).
You're making the same mistake everybody else that bitches about the electoral college does: You're treating the presidential election like one single election (which it isn't) instead of the 51 distinct elections that it is. We're not just a republic, we're a federal republic made up of 50 sovereign nations. In that light, the sum total of the popular vote doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.
I agree it's not perfect, but the alternative is a few large population centers setting the national agenda. Those of us that live in "flyover country" don't particularly find that idea all that interesting.
While removing the layer of abstraction that the Electoral College represents would improve things somewhat, the more fundamental problem is using a plurality vote in the first place.
This would only improve things for the people that want a small number of highly populated areas to control the national agenda. This is exactly what the electoral college system was designed to prevent in the first place. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
A Borda/Condorcet system or approval voting system would allow people to honestly portray their preferences without ever needing to be concerned about "throwing away" their votes.
We need both this AND the electoral college. Real voter choice without the country being ruled by Los Angeles and New York City.
It's the fact that in most states if you win by one vote you win all the college votes. To the people in other democracies around the world this is just plain insanity.
I'd note that it's worked for us for longer than the other democracies around the world have BEEN democracies. Different things work in different situations--without the system we have now, there wouldn't BE a United States because either the larger or smaller states wouldn't have gone for it.
Personally, I find the democratic systems around the world where elections don't happen on a regular schedule, but only have to be once every n years with the party in power getting to schedule them to be insanity, myself--but I'd never dream of telling those people they were doing it wrong.
The only thing that that puzzles us more is why some states have different rules.
My post above should have explained that well enough, I think: because each state is sovereign, they get to set their own rules as far as things like elections go. It's like asking why two different member states of the EU have different elections processes.
So we have the electorial college and senate, which part is redundant?
Neither--one is legislative, the other is executive. As for judicial, the Senate fills that role, too, by having the power to confirm or reject federal judges.
This is sure to get the Republicans riled up, especially in Florida.
I'm not sure about that. Though I'm no republican, I admit to feeling a bit... insulted that anybody thinks that the US needs election watchdogs (we have our problems with voter fraud, of course--every nation does--but overall we've been doing this sort of thing longer and better than most of the world) and that insult breeds a certain amount of anger.
But frankly, once you get past that initial reaction, I think that if anyone wants to watch an American election they should be more than welcome so long as they don't interfere. Personally, I think just about everybody (except those people--from both major parties--that actively engage in election fraud) will eventually end up with a similar view.
My own informal poll shows a strong European anti-Bush sentiment, which we could safely assume will combine with this initiative to generate a certain kind of PR... mainly negative I expect.
I don't know about this, either. Americans--and I use that term loosely, since we're such a diverse bunch--generally don't react well to our leaders being talked down by the rest of the world. A significant percentage will actually support George Bush because of that. I have no data to base this on other than my own observations in a fairly rural part of the South, so take it with a large grain of salt.
The more populous states, have more electorial college votes
But there are far more smaller states than large ones. It balances out.
And with the winner take all system that most of the states have, if 51% of, say, NY votes for one particular canidate, it has the same effect as if 100% of NY had voted for them.
How the electors are aportioned is left up to the individual states--some states actually assign electors based on congressional district, with the overall winner of the state picking up the extra 2. The reason for the state control is that each US state is actually, under the consitution, a sovereign nation in its own right.
Political opinion is shaped more by region than it is by the number of people that just happen to live in the state you are in.
This is irrelevant--it's not about regional political opinion. It's about the ability of individual states to have a say in national politics.
Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?
What do you mean "help the most people possible?" It's an election, not allocation of funding.
One needs to understand that the United States is not (at least by design, anyway) a monolithic entity, but actually a confederation of 50 sovereign nations.
When this federation was being set up, the states with the least population--and remember, these are sovereign nations--felt that a system that aportioned power based on population would see their states reduced to unimportance, with no say in interstate or foreign issues. The more populous states felt, in turn, that a system that aportioned power as a fixed percentage (i.e. "one state, one vote" as it were) left THEM, with their larger populations, with less power than they should rightfully have.
The result was the bicameral system we have today, where the legislature is divided into two houses--one with a fixed amount of votes per state, and the other with delegates aportioned by population, with each state having at least one delegate.
The electoral college is a combination of both of these ideas: each state receives a number of electors equal to their number of delegates in the house of representatives, plus the number of delegates in the senate. This ensures that pure population doesn't elect the president and create a situation where a state has no national voice.
It is in no way a perfect system, but it is a fairly good one given the issues that needed to be dealt with.
if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I haven't done the math myself (and I doubt you have either) but generally speaking, the states with the highest population (i.e. the most electoral votes) generally go Democrat. If you apportioned electors based on percentage of the vote in the state, I think it's more than likely that big Republican gains in states like California (45 electors) would offset the smaller states.
If you aportioned electors based on congressional districts, with the winner of the state picking up the bonus 2, I think it would be a Republican landslide.
Slashdot Mirror
#5. If your first name is the last name of a former president of the US, it is a Ghetto Name.
If I were a child named "Bush" or "Johnson" I'd probably look for the quickest, easiest way to just end it all.
Why would Bush want to attack somewhere which actually has WMDs, it would be worst than Vietnam for the US "body" count.
We're not afraid of the WMDs. The big issue is that Seoul is so close to the DMZ, and North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces in range and pointed at said city. They don't need WMDs to deter any aggressive action, because they can kill millions with conventional weapons.
Actually, joking aside, the US is more interested in bombing the shit out of North Korea than making any gestures of help for these people.
I know US bashing is ever so popular, but we're donating 50,000 tons of food to North Korea this year. And despite BBC's take on the issue, we've been giving food to North Korea for years. I understand most of it goes to feed Kim's military instead of reaching the people we're trying to help, so it's no wonder we're sending less than we used to.
Now, if the US were at war with N.Korea right now, it would be so politically incorrect to say that.
We are.
The Korean war (1950-1953) ended in an armistice, and not a peace treaty, so the US (and, techincally, the United Nations itself) is still at war with North Korea.
Since I don't work for Wal-Mart, and my butt was the one 25ft up in the air running cable, I would call this outsourcing.
My guess is they don't consider this IT, they consider it "facilities."
This would result in a loss for Walmart, and if it's subtle enough, it could take them a LONG time to track down.
But when they figured it out...
It would probably be worse than being sued by IBM.
I received the above comment in metamod. It was marked as "flamebait," and I marked that moderation "unfair." I disagree with the author's point, and believe the consequences would be dire--but his comment was pretty interesting and worth reading. It's not flamebait simply because it says something you don't want to hear.
I've never gone back into a discussion when I see a comment in metamod, but this one particularly annoyed me. I realize that it's extremely likely that no one is ever going to see my reply post--but I feel the need to state my position anyway.
Even peace can only work if both sides want peace. After WW2 the european nations more or less decided that there were to be no more wars (on european soil between european nations, the rest of the world was still open season) and because all of them decided it it happened. Even though spain and england have a dispute over the rock of gibraltar. Even though Ireland and England are in dispute. Even though most of the nations have a long long history of war with each other there has been peace
There was peace in post-WW2 Europe because the United States was there to keep the Soviets out--or did you sleep through that period of history known as the Cold War?
But, you are getting something in return: A right to use their software.. ( presumably that is something of value, sometimes its debatable )
So technically it IS a contract..
I gain the right to use their software when I plonk my money down on the counter and leave the store.
Once I install the software, I'm presented with a contract I obstensibly have to agree to in order to make use of what I have just purchased. I receive nothing in return for agreeing to this demand, and, given that no retailer I'm aware of will accept an open box software return, my agreement is made under duress (i.e. if I don't agree, I forfeit my purchase price.)
In addition to the problems above, the vendor making demands on me after the purchase is made seems to violate the doctrine of first sale--of course, IANAL.
I propose you get rid of cars entirely. Its generally accepted that bike and pedestrian friendly communities have a better standard of living than the others.
Thus, public transportation to move between communties, and biking/walking/electric chairs for transportation inside these communities.
It's a nice idea, but some of us don't live in areas of high population concentration, and public transportation is either sparse or completely unavailable. The city I live in has 15,000 people, and is 15 square miles in size. The entire county has 62,000 people and is 622 square miles in size. In such a situation, public transit just doesn't make any kind of sense.
maybe because most people can't stand the ghastly color they give off. maybe the newest flourescents are better (my wife- an architect- is continuously trying to convince me that i wouldn't mind them) but i have yet to see a flourescent light that doesnt make everything look rather sickly.
GE now makes a flourescent bulb in their Soft White line. The color is pretty close to incandescent, although it has a little bit of a green tinge until it warms up completely.
When I replace a bulb in my house, and particularly in areas where the light in question is on more than it's off (porch light, for example) I'm doing so with one of these--they use 1/4th the power as incandescent that provides the same amount of light, and last like 10 times as long. They do cost quite a bit (about 7 bucks each) though.
Uhh, get a clue? In democracies around the world, elections do happen on a regular schedule, usually every 4 years. The current governmnet just gets to schedule the exact date, e.g. here in germany the next election will be in september 2006, and the current government will schedule the exact date.
I wasn't talking about all democracies around the world--such a blanket statement would be absurd--merely those that do things in what I find to be an odd way. Canada, for example. Still, it seems to work for them so who am I to question?
Maybe you should take your own advice and "get a clue" as it were. You seem to be guilty of that crime Europeans love to accuse Americans of--that we think things everywhere else work (or should work) the same way they do at home.
Why don't you just check it? Wikipedia says: Republicans have 50,456,002 votes Democrats have 50,999,897 votes. Nader has 2,882,955 votes
It's not that simple--and if you think it is, you haven't been reading this thread.
It's not one election, it's 51 elections. "Checking it" would require getting the vote totals from all 51 elections, and pro-rating the number of electors based on the percentages for each state. I don't have an hour or two to devote that right now, or I would have.
but that is yet another problem with the American voting system
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
You're talking about a nation that's been known to shoot dissidents in the head, then bill their families for the cost of the ammunition.
If the images from Tiennamen Square didn't stir a nation to full outright revolution, do you honestly think the removal of a search engine (which has already happened to google in the past, FYI, so it's not like there's no precedent) is going to be a mechanism for change?
But considering the state of our political debate these days, or lack thereof, it hasn't helped do anything except keep the country whole.
This is a recent development, all things considered, and is a result of the current two party system--not defined anywhere in the constitution, but certainly a reality. Elimination of the electoral college won't change that fact--other changes, those that actually level the playing field for third party candidates, are needed instead.
So I stand by my statement that the electoral college has "worked for us." We might actually need to change it once we fix the other problems (imagine 2000 if Nader had won North Dakota) but I think the idea behind it is sound.
So in effect you could say that the united states of america is a republic of democratic states?
:)
Actually, given that each state is set up on similar lines as the overall nation, you could say that we're a republic of republics.
how is tha that the united states of america has the illusion of being a beacon of democracy?
What illusion? In general, we hold democratic ideals sacred--sure we do things a little bit differently than everybody else, but our constitution has worked for us for two hundred and fifteen years. It was (rightly) regarded at the dawn of the 19th century to be wonderful and marvelous, a great experiment in freedom. People came here in their millions from old European nations that didn't want them, and they discovered how and why America was great. Slowly, but surely, the rest of the world caught up.
Things certainly have changed over the last fifty years--and recent events are indeed troubling--but if the above isn't the very definition of "beacon of democracy" I don't know what is.
But it makes the people in those tiny states much more powerfull than those of us who live in places where you might actually want to live. If you live in North Dakota, there are only 214K citizens per electoral vote but if you live in PA, there are 585K per electoral vote. So a resident of ND has 2.7 times the voting power for president than I do. How is that fair? It seems to me that it lets the small states walk all over the big states.
... The person with the most votes should win in a democracy (or a republic).
I agree that North Dakota is a particularly good illustration of one of the problems the electoral college does have, but the flip side is that the state of Pennsylvania in total has significantly more voting power than North Dakota--just not quite as much as it "should." The system is obviously the result of a compromise, and such a beast can never be perfect. But without compromises like this one, the United States would not have existed at all.
By the way, your complaint is valid against the Senate, as well--but it's even more extreme with 6.14 MILLION citizens in Pennsylvania having the same representation as 316,000 North Dakotans. Just curious (no flame intended) but do you perceive the same basic unfairness here?
Nevermind your personal ideology, do you really think that it is a good thing for the country that the person with the most popular votes in the presidential election does not get elected?
You're making the same mistake everybody else that bitches about the electoral college does: You're treating the presidential election like one single election (which it isn't) instead of the 51 distinct elections that it is. We're not just a republic, we're a federal republic made up of 50 sovereign nations. In that light, the sum total of the popular vote doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.
I agree it's not perfect, but the alternative is a few large population centers setting the national agenda. Those of us that live in "flyover country" don't particularly find that idea all that interesting.
This is a load of bull. Gore DID win the majority vote. ... Bush ARGUABLY won the majority vote in Florida.
<Inigo>You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.</Inigo>
majority n. pl. majorities
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
Gore won the popular vote with a plurality. Bush arguably won the vote in Florida with a plurality. In neither race did any candidate have a majority.
Got it?
While removing the layer of abstraction that the Electoral College represents would improve things somewhat, the more fundamental problem is using a plurality vote in the first place.
This would only improve things for the people that want a small number of highly populated areas to control the national agenda. This is exactly what the electoral college system was designed to prevent in the first place. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
A Borda/Condorcet system or approval voting system would allow people to honestly portray their preferences without ever needing to be concerned about "throwing away" their votes.
We need both this AND the electoral college. Real voter choice without the country being ruled by Los Angeles and New York City.
It's the fact that in most states if you win by one vote you win all the college votes. To the people in other democracies around the world this is just plain insanity.
I'd note that it's worked for us for longer than the other democracies around the world have BEEN democracies. Different things work in different situations--without the system we have now, there wouldn't BE a United States because either the larger or smaller states wouldn't have gone for it.
Personally, I find the democratic systems around the world where elections don't happen on a regular schedule, but only have to be once every n years with the party in power getting to schedule them to be insanity, myself--but I'd never dream of telling those people they were doing it wrong.
The only thing that that puzzles us more is why some states have different rules.
My post above should have explained that well enough, I think: because each state is sovereign, they get to set their own rules as far as things like elections go. It's like asking why two different member states of the EU have different elections processes.
So we have the electorial college and senate, which part is redundant?
Neither--one is legislative, the other is executive. As for judicial, the Senate fills that role, too, by having the power to confirm or reject federal judges.
This is sure to get the Republicans riled up, especially in Florida.
I'm not sure about that. Though I'm no republican, I admit to feeling a bit... insulted that anybody thinks that the US needs election watchdogs (we have our problems with voter fraud, of course--every nation does--but overall we've been doing this sort of thing longer and better than most of the world) and that insult breeds a certain amount of anger.
But frankly, once you get past that initial reaction, I think that if anyone wants to watch an American election they should be more than welcome so long as they don't interfere. Personally, I think just about everybody (except those people--from both major parties--that actively engage in election fraud) will eventually end up with a similar view.
My own informal poll shows a strong European anti-Bush sentiment, which we could safely assume will combine with this initiative to generate a certain kind of PR... mainly negative I expect.
I don't know about this, either. Americans--and I use that term loosely, since we're such a diverse bunch--generally don't react well to our leaders being talked down by the rest of the world. A significant percentage will actually support George Bush because of that. I have no data to base this on other than my own observations in a fairly rural part of the South, so take it with a large grain of salt.
The more populous states, have more electorial college votes
But there are far more smaller states than large ones. It balances out.
And with the winner take all system that most of the states have, if 51% of, say, NY votes for one particular canidate, it has the same effect as if 100% of NY had voted for them.
How the electors are aportioned is left up to the individual states--some states actually assign electors based on congressional district, with the overall winner of the state picking up the extra 2. The reason for the state control is that each US state is actually, under the consitution, a sovereign nation in its own right.
Political opinion is shaped more by region than it is by the number of people that just happen to live in the state you are in.
This is irrelevant--it's not about regional political opinion. It's about the ability of individual states to have a say in national politics.
The above should say, of course, that California has 54 electors. Sorry for the transposition.
Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?
What do you mean "help the most people possible?" It's an election, not allocation of funding.
One needs to understand that the United States is not (at least by design, anyway) a monolithic entity, but actually a confederation of 50 sovereign nations.
When this federation was being set up, the states with the least population--and remember, these are sovereign nations--felt that a system that aportioned power based on population would see their states reduced to unimportance, with no say in interstate or foreign issues. The more populous states felt, in turn, that a system that aportioned power as a fixed percentage (i.e. "one state, one vote" as it were) left THEM, with their larger populations, with less power than they should rightfully have.
The result was the bicameral system we have today, where the legislature is divided into two houses--one with a fixed amount of votes per state, and the other with delegates aportioned by population, with each state having at least one delegate.
The electoral college is a combination of both of these ideas: each state receives a number of electors equal to their number of delegates in the house of representatives, plus the number of delegates in the senate. This ensures that pure population doesn't elect the president and create a situation where a state has no national voice.
It is in no way a perfect system, but it is a fairly good one given the issues that needed to be dealt with.
if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I haven't done the math myself (and I doubt you have either) but generally speaking, the states with the highest population (i.e. the most electoral votes) generally go Democrat. If you apportioned electors based on percentage of the vote in the state, I think it's more than likely that big Republican gains in states like California (45 electors) would offset the smaller states.
If you aportioned electors based on congressional districts, with the winner of the state picking up the bonus 2, I think it would be a Republican landslide.
Just a thought.