ExiledInIllinois Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I don't know...it'd be interesting to see what the effect would be if congressional districts could allocate ec votes on their own Yikes. See how they Gerrymander the borders of their district right now. I suppose we can all dream that Belicheck doesn't cheat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Well with the benefit of hindsight Romney lost the popular vote. And in 2000 the Electoral College sucked. Today it's ok. The Electoral College was OK in 2000 and today. The issue is making sure all the registered voters who want to vote can, and that every vote is counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 In this other thread.... http://forums.twobil...urus-out-there/ using the 2000 election, I did some comparisons that would split the EC votes per state based on the percentage each candidate received. Bush still had a higher number of EC votes, but not the required 270 to clinch. What about making every EC Vote up for grabs based on congressional district? The winner of the popular vote per state gets the two EC votes representing each state's senators. That would put every state in play while preserving the rights of small states. The District of Columbia would get a single EC Vote as well. So there would be 101 (50 states at 2 each plus 1 for DC) EC Votes? If that's the case, using, again, the 2000 Election as a guide, Bush would have soundly defeated Gore, 30 states to 20+DC. (I only use 2000 since it was such a close election) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) On another note... Gore couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000... How sad and pathetic. Edited November 8, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Can you imagine the national recount in a close election? Otherwise, I agree that it's outdated, but hard to change on a state by state basis (no regular winner wants to concede a share of there current 100%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Can you imagine the national recount in a close election? Otherwise, I agree that it's outdated, but hard to change on a state by state basis (no regular winner wants to concede a share of there current 100%) The IRS somehow counts all the tax returns mailed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 In this other thread.... http://forums.twobil...urus-out-there/ using the 2000 election, I did some comparisons that would split the EC votes per state based on the percentage each candidate received. Bush still had a higher number of EC votes, but not the required 270 to clinch. So there would be 101 (50 states at 2 each plus 1 for DC) EC Votes? If that's the case, using, again, the 2000 Election as a guide, Bush would have soundly defeated Gore, 30 states to 20+DC. (I only use 2000 since it was such a close election) Actually what I was thinking was 538 still 435 for each member of the house, 100 two each for each senator and the three already allotted to DC. (Sorry my high school government course was a few decades ago) Each congressional districts vote would be up for grabs, the candidiate with the most vote for that district wins that EC vote. The votes representing the senators would be awarded to the candidate who wins the state's popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What about making every EC Vote up for grabs based on congressional district? The winner of the popular vote per state gets the two EC votes representing each state's senators. That would put every state in play while preserving the rights of small states. The District of Columbia would get a single EC Vote as well. The House and POTUS would likely be controlled by the same party in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The House and POTUS would likely be controlled by the same party in this situation. True but states that do not normally see Presidential Candidates during the general election might actually see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts