I Am Not Fond Of Some Congressmen Now...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

My idea is to use 'popular-vote proportionality' for picking electors. There'd still be an electoral college, but the "winner take all" system would be scrapped.

 

It's a bit hard to explain, but it did produce the results of 267-264-6-1 (Gore/Bush/Nader/other).

 

Although this mean that the third party candidates get a shot at votes in big states. Nader got votes from California (2), Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and Texas.

 

There might be a bit more to explain

Problem is, though Robbie, you're still just strictly using the popular vote as your only means of determination (Yeah, that sounds weird, but bear with me). It still falls prey to the domination of the population centers since there is no balancing effect for diversifying the vote; it's 'same system, different t-shirt'. If you want a more proportional electoral college, then do it by congressional districts: They are all mandated to be the same size, and it allows for states to split their electors.

 

And even then, I'll point out that Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts. He still wouldn't have won because he only appealed to the big population centers.

Well, the thing I did is still a bit odd.

 

Basically, I can't remember the exact system but I put it on a spreadsheet. There was rounding up and all that involved, and with that, there was an occasional case of more votes than the state had (due to rounding up, i'd say).

 

The California allocation on the spreadsheet for 2000 was 29-22 for Gore. (The pop. vote was 53% to 42% for Gore).

 

As for congressional districts. The US Election Atlas ( www.uselectionatlas.org ) says that the results are 226-209 for Bush.

 

And adding the at-large votes (for the two Senate seats) and the 3 DC votes. It's 286-252 for Bush. Which is a pretty large margin.

 

I'll stick with my system, even if it would have sent the vote to the House since it gave 267 votes to Gore, 264 to Bush, 6 to Nader and 1 to Buchanan (Well, the fourth place guy in California gets a vote, and he was in 4th place)

 

I'm sure saying "Puerto Rico should get a vote in the Presidential election" is something for another day. Although, I don't know where they'd fall, they'd probably vote Democrat.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't think I could blame anyone in this country for losing faith in this nation's electorial process after the debacle four years ago.

There WASN'T a debacle. That's the point.

 

It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting.

 

The system WORKED.

-=Mike

Wow. Just Wow. Any interest in participating in this thread has been killed.......

[KingPK 0]

It did. It's just that some Floridians were too fucking braindead to ask for help when they couldn't understand the ballot.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow. Just Wow. Any interest in participating in this thread has been killed.......

Thanks for your addition to the conversation.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Wow. Just Wow.  Any interest in participating in this thread has been killed.......

Thanks for your addition to the conversation.

-=Mike

Your welcome, and another thanks to you for keeping me from getting involved in another 2000 Election debacle rehash conversation, cheers

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Reset your clock NoCalMike

[NoCalMike 0]

Reset your clock NoCalMike

EDIT: forgot daylight savings time....