bobweaver
(953 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 02:45 PM
Original message |
What would the electoral vote be if all states divided them proportionally |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-04-05 02:46 PM by bobweaver
instead of winner-take-all? What would the electoral vote totals be in that hypothetical case?
|
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Do you want to assume the numbers are accurate? |
bobweaver
(953 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
10. Knowing that they are NOT accurate, but they are all we have, right? |
BlueEyedSon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Since the Bush won the pop vote by a decent margin |
|
I suppose it won't make much difference.
|
IndyOp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Bush STOLE the pop vote by a decent margin (n/t) |
Pacifist Patriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
righteous1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Now that is an excellent question n/t |
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I believe that's how it should work anyway |
|
Each state should put up the slate of electoral votes based upon a percentage of the popular vote in the state with the extra two electoral votes going to whichever person takes the most votes in the election.
Unfortunately, under the constitution that would require fifty seperate eefforts in fifty seperate states and very few states are going to be willing to forgo electoral strength for fairness, thus the only way to accomplish this would be via amendment and the politicians in Washington simply will not do that.
Under that scenario, Bush still would ahve won in 2004, but would have lost in 2000.
|
bemis12
(594 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Should be much like the popular vote |
|
51%-48% Bush
Approx 274 EV's for Bush.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message |
7. small state bonus always puts Bush over the top - if electorial votes |
|
are also allocated based on total pop vote without looking at per state numbers it becomes a simple win the popular vote game.
Actually in the standard Electorial vote game, the GOP winning really big the small states could end up giving the Dems an edge in the standard Electorial vote game if the Dems come in second in pop vote but get a small winning split in the large states. But that is just the effect of concentrated vote losing.
I suspect this possibility is deminished with proportional allocation
I believe proportional would make it harder to overcome the small state bonus, and may well make it harder for the pop vote loser to win the electorial vote - but in the end I believe the concentration thing still screws up the result in a win a state contest.
But someone should run the numbers!
:-)
|
righteous1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-04-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message |
8. What will be interesting is when a certain amount of states go to the |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-04-05 03:42 PM by righteous1
proportional allocation and the rest stay as is. Man the possible scenarios will be mind boggling
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |