|
Title: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: The Arizonan on December 14, 2016, 03:16:17 PM What if instead of winner-take-all, candidates won electoral votes in each state based on the percentage of voters that voted for them?
The winner of each state would get two electoral votes, which would be the at-large votes, and the rest is based on proportion. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: RI on December 14, 2016, 03:51:41 PM For 2016, Trump would've likely still had more EVs than Clinton, but whether he cleared 270 would depend on your rounding rules and third party thresholds.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: vote for pedro on December 17, 2016, 08:46:48 PM What if instead of winner-take-all, candidates won electoral votes in each state based on the percentage of voters that voted for them? The winner of each state would get two electoral votes, which would be the at-large votes, and the rest is based on proportion. How would you handle Rhode Island with 4 EV? The clear victor at 55% has "about half" of the popular vote. Who gets the 4th EV? I think it should go to the victor; unless an argument could be made that someone else won one of the two Congressional districts. Then you would be describing how Nebraska and Maine handle it. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Kerrington on December 17, 2016, 09:03:47 PM What if instead of winner-take-all, candidates won electoral votes in each state based on the percentage of voters that voted for them? The winner of each state would get two electoral votes, which would be the at-large votes, and the rest is based on proportion. Why should the winner of each state get two electoral votes? Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: DPKdebator on December 18, 2016, 05:05:28 PM I think it would make sense to proportionally distribute the votes based on how many CDs each state has, then giving the two senator EVs to the winner of the vote overall.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Lachi on December 18, 2016, 05:12:55 PM I think it would make sense to proportionally distribute the votes based on how many CDs each state has, then giving the two senator EVs to the winner of the vote overall. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: jaichind on December 18, 2016, 06:24:35 PM I think it would make sense to proportionally distribute the votes based on how many CDs each state has, then giving the two senator EVs to the winner of the vote overall. This would be the system I would prefer Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself on December 18, 2016, 11:03:53 PM I think it would make sense to proportionally distribute the votes based on how many CDs each state has, then giving the two senator EVs to the winner of the vote overall. No, under a proportional system, if you win 70% of the vote, you get 70% of the house EVs plus the 2 senate EVs for winning the vote statewide. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: IceAgeComing on December 19, 2016, 06:14:21 AM third parties would only really have had a shot in the big states; and that's depends on the method that they use to allocate the votes - Saint Lagne would give more smaller party electors that D'Hondt for example.
There actually wouldn't be that many smaller parties represented - just done a quick check using D'Hondt and in California there'd be one Johnson and one Stein (35 Clinton, 18 Trump); one Johnson in Texas (20 Trump, 17 Clinton), 1 McMullin in Utah (3 Trump, 2 Clinton), none in New York and most of the other states are too small for third parties to be near. Probably would be close overall; Trump probably still edges it though - I might actually go and fully do it when I get some from work tonight. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: LLR on December 19, 2016, 07:13:31 AM third parties would only really have had a shot in the big states; and that's depends on the method that they use to allocate the votes - Saint Lagne would give more smaller party electors that D'Hondt for example. There actually wouldn't be that many smaller parties represented - just done a quick check using D'Hondt and in California there'd be one Johnson and one Stein (35 Clinton, 18 Trump); one Johnson in Texas (20 Trump, 17 Clinton), 1 McMullin in Utah (3 Trump, 2 Clinton), none in New York and most of the other states are too small for third parties to be near. Probably would be close overall; Trump probably still edges it though - I might actually go and fully do it when I get some from work tonight. If you set a 10% threshold (which is only reasonable), then only McMullin's counts, I believe. Third parties shouldn't get free EVs for simply existing in California. 10% is arbitrary, but it's a nice, round number that indicates a divide between success and failure. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: IceAgeComing on December 19, 2016, 08:35:27 AM I'd go for 5% (since that's the amount that you need to get nationally to get Federal funding; makes sense to have everything at the same level) and that'd get rid of everything but McMullin as well I think; certainly in the big states it would. Although that threshold would be a bit academic in every state that has less than 20 EVs which is most of them...
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: IceAgeComing on December 19, 2016, 11:44:50 AM OK just done the maths: I'll post the state by state totals later on but the results without a threshold are Clinton 270, Trump 264, Johnson 2, Stein 1 and McMullin 1. With a 5% threshold, its Clinton 272, Trump 265 and McMullin 1. Only one area gives all of its EVs to one person (DC; indeed Trump would fall below a 5% threshold although its academic when you only have three electoral votes); everywhere else splits. Some interesting results which show the disadvantage of PR with small number of seats: all of the three-EV state have to split 2/1 even where there's a tight margin, which Rhode Island is 2/2 despite Clinton handily winning.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: NOT gonna be banned soon on December 21, 2016, 05:35:26 PM I've done something like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=246616.0
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: RI on December 21, 2016, 08:03:09 PM OK just done the maths: I'll post the state by state totals later on but the results without a threshold are Clinton 270, Trump 264, Johnson 2, Stein 1 and McMullin 1. With a 5% threshold, its Clinton 272, Trump 265 and McMullin 1. Only one area gives all of its EVs to one person (DC; indeed Trump would fall below a 5% threshold although its academic when you only have three electoral votes); everywhere else splits. Some interesting results which show the disadvantage of PR with small number of seats: all of the three-EV state have to split 2/1 even where there's a tight margin, which Rhode Island is 2/2 despite Clinton handily winning. Those aren't the numbers I got. I don't think you're awarding the two-vote victory bonus, as there should be quite a few more 100% states if you do. It changes the calculation substantially. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on December 22, 2016, 04:23:20 PM In my mind, this is a much more reasonable proposal than a national popular vote. My only concern is that allocating electoral votes (and making maps :P) would get very messy.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Figueira on December 22, 2016, 10:53:01 PM I'm pretty sure Clinton would win in this scenario. What killed her was her narrow losses in a bunch of big states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina), not the fact that North Dakotans count more than Californians.
However, this proposal isn't happening. There's no constitutional way to do this on a federal level without an amendment, and no legislature would agree to do this on a state level because it would be unilateral disarmament. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Ljube on January 07, 2017, 03:17:11 AM It's up to each state to determine how it will award electoral votes to candidates.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Vosem on January 07, 2017, 11:16:36 AM There's no practical way to get it done, except maybe constitutional amendment, but this is the system I would support us switching to instead of NPV.
I calculated what the results of this would be the day after the election; results have shifted since then a little bit, but at the time the numbers were 262 Clinton, 262 Trump, 12 Johnson, 1 Stein, 1 McMullin. Johnson would've effectively become the kingmaker in the Electoral College, able to endorse a candidate and direct his electors towards them (assuming the loyalty of all electors in such a scenario). I think since then Hillary has probably picked up a few electoral votes, but not enough to win outright. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 09, 2017, 08:12:55 PM There's no practical way to get it done, except maybe constitutional amendment, but this is the system I would support us switching to instead of NPV. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: DPKdebator on January 10, 2017, 08:23:40 AM I'm pretty sure Clinton would win in this scenario. What killed her was her narrow losses in a bunch of big states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina), not the fact that North Dakotans count more than Californians. However, this proposal isn't happening. There's no constitutional way to do this on a federal level without an amendment, and no legislature would agree to do this on a state level because it would be unilateral disarmament. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: MarkD on January 15, 2017, 09:26:34 PM How would you handle Rhode Island with 4 EV? The clear victor at 55% has "about half" of the popular vote. Who gets the 4th EV? Exactly. How do the five states that have only 4 electoral college votes split them? Not just Rhode Island, but Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, and Hawaii. Wouldn't ME and NH always split the four EVs evenly, giving two to both candidates? At what threshold does a state that has only 4 EVs decide to split them 3-1 instead of 2-2? The seven states that have just 3 EVs will always split them 2-1 in favor of whoever wins. No drama there. The states that have 5 EVs will very likely always split them 3-2 in favor of whoever wins. This kind of system does not make any sense to me. The system would only be relevant in the largest states. So I prefer a NPV. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: DPKdebator on January 16, 2017, 03:33:08 PM How would you handle Rhode Island with 4 EV? The clear victor at 55% has "about half" of the popular vote. Who gets the 4th EV? Exactly. How do the five states that have only 4 electoral college votes split them? Not just Rhode Island, but Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, and Hawaii. Wouldn't ME and NH always split the four EVs evenly, giving two to both candidates? At what threshold does a state that has only 4 EVs decide to split them 3-1 instead of 2-2? The seven states that have just 3 EVs will always split them 2-1 in favor of whoever wins. No drama there. The states that have 5 EVs will very likely always split them 3-2 in favor of whoever wins. This kind of system does not make any sense to me. The system would only be relevant in the largest states. So I prefer a NPV. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Gary J on January 17, 2017, 06:38:08 PM A proposal by Senator Howard Cannon (D-NV) to the 91st Congress suggested a proportional electoral vote allocation plan. The number of electoral votes would be the same as before, but instead of popular electors choosing electors of the President, the popular vote would be used to divide the electoral vote of each jurisdiction calculated to three decimal places.
This is a much more radical proportional allocation plan than the one suggested by the diarist. The key part of the proposed constitutional amendment was as follows. http://www.every-vote-equal.com/sites/default/files/eve-4th-ed-ch3-web-v1.pdf Quote ‘SECTION 4. Within forty-five days after such election, or at such time as Congress shall direct, the official custodian of the election returns of each State and the District of Columbia shall make distinct lists of all persons for whom votes were cast for President and the number of votes cast for each person, and the total vote cast by the electors of the State of the District for all persons for President, which lists he shall sign and certify and transmit sealed to the seat of Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. On the 6th day of January following the election, unless the Congress by law appoints a different day not earlier than the 4th day of January and not later than the 10th day of January, the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all certificates and the votes shall then be counted. Each person for whom votes were cast shall be credited with such proportion of the electoral votes thereof as he received of the total vote cast by the electors therein for President. In making the computation, fractional numbers less than one one-thousandth shall be disregarded. The person having the greatest aggregate number of electoral votes of the States and the District of Columbia for President shall be President, if such number be at least 40 per centum of the whole number of such electoral votes, or if two persons have received an identical number of such electoral votes which is at least 40 per centum of the whole number of electoral votes, then from the persons having the two greatest number of such electoral votes for President, the Senate and the House of Representatives sitting in joint session shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. A majority of the votes of the com- bined membership of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be necessary for a choice. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: jimrtex on January 21, 2017, 10:54:26 PM Alexander Hamilton's version of the 12th Amendment would have provided that presidential electors be elected by electoral district drawn by Congress (e.g. a state with one representative would have three electoral districts) and that the mode of election be specified by Congress, and that the electors designate presidential and vice presidential votes.
Hamilton's proposed 12th Amendment (https://itshamiltime.com/2014/01/16/after-1800-hamilton-and-the-twelfth-amendment/) Had this been adopted, there wouldn't be any questions about national popular vote, since nobody would be adding up the votes, anymore than they total the national popular vote for Congress. A modern version would provide that: Electors be apportioned among the United States and their territories based on the Citizen Population over age 18. An elector would represent between 20,000 and 50,000 persons. Electors be chosen by the voters eligible to vote for the larger house of a legislature, with time, manner, place regulations set by the legislature, subject to a congressional override (e.g. same rules as apply to the election of Congress). Electors would meet as a single national body, perhaps electronically linked; and would determine a president and vice president by majority vote. If no candidate received a majority on the initial vote, voting would continue by rounds among the (up to Top 10), with one eliminated on each round. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: catscanjumphigh on January 31, 2017, 06:25:24 AM You basically have a popular vote election with a slight edge to the candidate who won the majority of the states. My college professor drew diagrams about this on the chalk board and everyone laughed at him.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: brucejoel99 on February 11, 2017, 10:04:32 AM
Result: Donald Trump still elected 45th President of the United States Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2017, 05:54:57 PM What allocation method are you using? I find it a bit strange that Hillary gets all 4 in Hawaii and T***p all 4 in Idaho. PR would suggest a 3-1 split.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: brucejoel99 on February 11, 2017, 10:20:57 PM What allocation method are you using? I find it a bit strange that Hillary gets all 4 in Hawaii and T***p all 4 in Idaho. PR would suggest a 3-1 split. The allocation that OP suggests: awarding 2 EVs to the pop. vote winner, w/ the remainder allocated based on the percentage of pop. vote earned. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2017, 10:30:47 PM What allocation method are you using? I find it a bit strange that Hillary gets all 4 in Hawaii and T***p all 4 in Idaho. PR would suggest a 3-1 split. The allocation that OP suggests: awarding 2 EVs to the pop. vote winner, w/ the remainder allocated based on the percentage of pop. vote earned. I see. That makes sense then. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: vote for pedro on February 15, 2017, 10:49:15 PM Note how swing states with an even number of CDs only net 2 EVs to the winner. While swing states that have an odd number of EVs would be more important and net the winner 3 EVs. Very interesting.
Other than the odd/even deal it makes all the swing states equally important. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: dercook on March 07, 2017, 06:31:49 AM Would be rare to see landslide victories, but after all, it isn't like we're getting much of those these days.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: IceAgeComing on March 27, 2017, 09:20:28 AM The thing with even number districts behaving differently is known in PR: since with an even number of seats any election near 50/50 (assuming a two party race here, which isn't exactly the case in any country that uses PR outside of Malta and they use STV which is different although the same thing does tend to happen) the seats split equally while with an odd number of seats someone must come out with the most.
What it probably does is actually empower bigger states more than a full national popular vote would do: since . For example using D'Hondt PR (and not factoring in the majority bonus in this; the same principle applies though) in order to swing an electoral vote in a three vote state you need to swing a hell of a lot of votes (in a straight two-candidate race the quota to get an electoral vote in a three vote state would be 25%; so outside of DC they'd all split 2/1 unless one candidate had a total landslide and got over 75% of the vote) while in California you'd need 1.8% of the vote to get a seat; so its much easier to pick off a few seats with a relatively small swing of the vote): so in small states that are 60% for one candidate why would the parties bother campaigning since they know what the distribution is going to be? Alexander Hamilton's version of the 12th Amendment would have provided that presidential electors be elected by electoral district drawn by Congress (e.g. a state with one representative would have three electoral districts) and that the mode of election be specified by Congress, and that the electors designate presidential and vice presidential votes. Hamilton's proposed 12th Amendment (https://itshamiltime.com/2014/01/16/after-1800-hamilton-and-the-twelfth-amendment/) Had this been adopted, there wouldn't be any questions about national popular vote, since nobody would be adding up the votes, anymore than they total the national popular vote for Congress. A modern version would provide that: Electors be apportioned among the United States and their territories based on the Citizen Population over age 18. An elector would represent between 20,000 and 50,000 persons. Electors be chosen by the voters eligible to vote for the larger house of a legislature, with time, manner, place regulations set by the legislature, subject to a congressional override (e.g. same rules as apply to the election of Congress). Electors would meet as a single national body, perhaps electronically linked; and would determine a president and vice president by majority vote. If no candidate received a majority on the initial vote, voting would continue by rounds among the (up to Top 10), with one eliminated on each round. Here's the thing: this would basically mean that America would run Presidential elections in the same way that countries - hell; in some respects this is exactly the way that most European countries run with respect of picking their head of government, except that they are electing their parliament while you're elected a nonsense chamber full of thousands of people. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: MillennialModerate on July 21, 2017, 07:08:43 PM Isn't this basically like simplifying the popular vote?
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Anzeigenhauptmeister on July 24, 2017, 01:25:22 AM When I did this I got: Clinton 269 Trump 265 Johnson 2 Stein 1 McMullin 1 Using the D'hondt method and this calculator (http://icon.cat/util/elections) with no thresholds. I wonder what the Stein elector would have done... Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Free Bird on April 12, 2018, 07:12:48 AM Isn't this basically like simplifying the popular vote? No it wouldn't. Also, I found this calculator on 270toWin https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/ 276 Trump 257 Clinton 1 McMullin 3 Johnson 1 Stein Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: StateBoiler on April 19, 2018, 09:35:49 AM Done this for some elections. There's different ways to do it. For example,
(not touched the numbers in awhile, so may be off 1 or 2 in some spots, this may not have the final final vote count) Proportional by State (Highest Remainder Method) Trump 261 Clinton 260 Johnson 15 Stein 1 McMullin 1 if you say a person has to reach 1 full candidate to receive 1 (i.e. to receive 1 delegate in a state with 10 votes, must reach 10%): Trump 267 Clinton 267 Johnson 3 McMullin 1 if you say whoever receives most votes in a state must receive at least 1 more delegate than 2nd: Clinton 262 Trump 257 Johnson 17 Stein 1 McMullin 1 then say that category must reach 1 full delegate to receive 1: Clinton 269 Trump 265 Johnson 3 McMullin 1 if you want to do the D'Hondt Highest Averages method: Clinton 268 Trump 266 Johnson 2 Stein and McMullin 1 each if you want to do say convention-style delegate rules (receive a majority get all, if no one gets a majority greater than some percentage receives proportional, 5% limit below): Trump 284 Clinton 251 Johnson 2 McMullin 1 I have 12 different methods in a spreadsheet going back to 1992, and in all of them there's no way to get Clinton to 270 in 2016. The only way Gore in 2000 gets to 270 is under convention-style delegate apportionment. The current Electoral College is the only method that produces a winner in 1992. The elections I really want to do are 1980, 1968, 1948, and 1912. 1860 would be fun in theory. Minor parties in proportional state allocations would really focus on the big states. To get a vote in California you need a little less than 2% for instance. It would also drive a more national campaign for the two main parties. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Progressive Pessimist on April 24, 2018, 06:25:28 PM When I did this I got: Clinton 269 Drumpf 265 Johnson 2 Stein 1 McMullin 1 Using the D'hondt method and this calculator (http://icon.cat/util/elections) with no thresholds. I wonder what the Stein elector would have done... Probably not the right thing. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Former President tack50 on April 25, 2018, 02:20:53 PM What if instead of winner-take-all, candidates won electoral votes in each state based on the percentage of voters that voted for them? The winner of each state would get two electoral votes, which would be the at-large votes, and the rest is based on proportion. How would you handle Rhode Island with 4 EV? The clear victor at 55% has "about half" of the popular vote. Who gets the 4th EV? I think it should go to the victor; unless an argument could be made that someone else won one of the two Congressional districts. Then you would be describing how Nebraska and Maine handle it. Most likely the D'Hondt rule (or something similar) is used. So for Rhode Island you'd get a 2-2 split. Of course the main disadvantage of this is that 4 EV states would essencially become useless as they would almost always have a 2-2 split unless there's a massive landslide (you'd need a 60-40 split to get a 3-1 EV split) or a third party candidate Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: StateBoiler on April 26, 2018, 07:30:35 AM What if instead of winner-take-all, candidates won electoral votes in each state based on the percentage of voters that voted for them? The winner of each state would get two electoral votes, which would be the at-large votes, and the rest is based on proportion. How would you handle Rhode Island with 4 EV? The clear victor at 55% has "about half" of the popular vote. Who gets the 4th EV? I think it should go to the victor; unless an argument could be made that someone else won one of the two Congressional districts. Then you would be describing how Nebraska and Maine handle it. Most likely the D'Hondt rule (or something similar) is used. So for Rhode Island you'd get a 2-2 split. Of course the main disadvantage of this is that 4 EV states would essencially become useless as they would almost always have a 2-2 split unless there's a massive landslide (you'd need a 60-40 split to get a 3-1 EV split) or a third party candidate You could add a qualifier of the candidate that wins a state must receive 1 more delegate than the person that gets 2nd. For example: Quote 2012 Iowa (6 electoral votes) Obama 51.99% - 3.119 - 3 whole electoral votes Romney 46.18% - 2.771 - 2 whole electoral votes plus 1 for largest remainder G. Johnson 0.82% - 0.049 - 0 whole electoral votes Others 1.02% Under my listed rule: Obama 51.99% - 3.119 - 3 whole electoral votes Romney 46.18% - 2.771 - 2 whole electoral votes G. Johnson 0.82% - 0.049 - 0 whole electoral votes Romney should get 1 for largest remainder, but would not because he would be equal to the winner, so the remaining vote goes to who has the largest remainder between Obama and Johnson, which here would be Obama. It does create situations like this however occasionally. This is the most egregious example of the elections I have done: Quote 1992 Utah (5 electoral votes) G.H.W. Bush 43.36% - 2.168 - 2 whole electoral votes Perot 27.36% - 1.368 - 1 whole electoral vote B. Clinton 24.67% - 1.234 - 1 whole electoral votes Gritz 3.85% - 0.192 - 0 whole electoral votes Others 0.76% Normally the remaining electoral vote would go to Perot, but he would then be equal in electoral votes with the winner, so he can't get it, and neither can Clinton. So the vote is up for grabs between Bush and Gritz, and Gritz would have the higher fraction so would receive the vote, and he would have equal voting influence from the state as Perot while Perot has 7 times the votes. If you add a secondary qualifier of "to receive 1 electoral vote you must receive 1 whole electoral vote", it gets rid of this example as for Utah to receive 1 vote you'd have to reach 20%. That rule however does lead to 3 electoral vote states sometimes where whichever party has completely given up on the state, they're under 33.3% of the vote and the winning candidate sweeps the state 3-0. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: StateBoiler on April 27, 2018, 07:16:42 AM So updated my 2016 numbers yesterday to match Dave Leip's. Here's how every election I've done looks.
National Level Numbers Method 1: Purely Proportional (Highest Remainder Method) Method 2: Must Receive 1 Full Electoral Vote in Method 1 in order to Receive 1 Method 3: D'Hondt National (Highest Average Method) State Level Numbers Method 4: Proportional (Highest Remainder Method) Method 5: Must Receive 1 Full Electoral Vote in Method 4 in order to Receive 1 Method 6: Proportional, Winner Must Receive at least 1 more Electoral Vote than 2nd Method 7: Must Receive 1 Full Electoral Vote in Method 6 in order to Receive 1 Method 8: D'Hondt State (Highest Average Method) Convention-style Allocation Method 9: Receive a majority of a state's vote, you get all Electoral Votes; if no one receives a majority, everyone above a 15% cutoff line receives proportional allocation Method 10: Same as Method 9 except it's a 10% cutoff line Method 11: Same as Method 9 except it's a 5% cutoff line Method 12: Current Electoral College 2016: Quote Method 1: H. Clinton 259, Trump 248, G. Johnson 18, Stein 6, McMullin 3, Castle 1, Sanders 1, La Riva 1, De La Fuente 1 Method 2: H. Clinton 261, Trump 250, G. Johnson 18, Stein 6, McMullin 3 Method 3: H. Clinton 263, Trump 251, G. Johnson 17, Stein 5, McMullin 2 Method 4: Trump 261, H. Clinton 261, G. Johnson 14, Stein 1, McMullin 1 Method 5: Trump 267, H. Clinton 266, G. Johnson 3, Stein 1, McMullin 1 Method 6: H. Clinton 262, Trump 258, G. Johnson 16, Stein 1, McMullin 1 Method 7: Trump 267, H. Clinton 266, G. Johnson 3, Stein 1, McMullin 1 Method 8: H. Clinton 269, Trump 265, G. Johnson 2, Stein 1, McMullin 1 Method 9: Trump 284, H. Clinton 253, McMullin 1 Method 10: Trump 284, H. Clinton 253, McMullin 1 Method 11: Trump 284, H. Clinton 251, G. Johnson 2, McMullin 1 Method 12: Trump 306, H. Clinton 232 2012: Quote Method 1: Obama 275, Romney 254, G. Johnson 6, Stein 2, Goode 1 Method 2: Obama 276, Romney 255, G. Johnson 5, Stein 2 Method 3: Obama 276, Romney 256, G. Johnson 5, Stein 1 Method 4: Obama 276, Romney 261, G. Johnson 1 Method 5: Obama 276, Romney 262 Method 6: Obama 280, Romney 256, G. Johnson 2 Method 7: Obama 281, Romney 257 Method 8: Obama 274, Romney 264 Methods 9 thru 12: all Obama 332, Romney 206 2008: Quote Method 1: Obama 285, McCain 246, Nader 3, Barr 2, Baldwin 1, McKinney 1 Methods 2 and 3: Obama 286, McCain 247, Nader 3, Barr 2 Method 4: Obama 289, McCain 248, Nader 1 Method 5: Obama 289, McCain 249 Method 6: Obama 288, McCain 249, Nader 1 Method 7: Obama 289, McCain 249 Method 8: Obama 288, McCain 250 Methods 9 thru 12: all Obama 365, McCain 173 2004: Quote Method 1: G.W. Bush 273, Kerry 260, Nader 2, Badnarik 2, Peroutka 1 Method 2: G.W. Bush 274, Kerry 260, Nader 2, Badnarik 2 Method 3: G.W. Bush 274, Kerry 261, Nader 2, Badnarik 1 Method 4: G.W. Bush 280, Kerry 258 Method 5: G.W. Bush 281, Kerry 257 Method 6: G.W. Bush 276, Kerry 260, Nader 2 Method 7: G.W. Bush 277, Kerry 261 Method 8: G.W. Bush 279, Kerry 259 Methods 9 thru 12: all G.W. Bush 286, Kerry 252 2000: Quote Method 1: Gore 260, G.W. Bush 258, Nader 15, Buchanan 2, Browne 2, Phillips 1 Method 2: Gore 261, G.W. Bush 258, Nader 15, Buchanan 2, Browne 2 Method 3: Gore 262, G.W. Bush 259, Nader 14, Buchanan 2, Browne 1 Method 4: G.W. Bush 264, Gore 262, Nader 12 Method 5: G.W. Bush 271, Gore 264, Nader 3 Method 6: G.W. Bush 263, Gore 260, Nader 15 Method 7: G.W. Bush 272, Gore 263, Nader 3 Method 8: Gore 268, G.W. Bush 267, Nader 3 Methods 9 & 10: Gore 273, G.W. Bush 265 Method 11: Gore 272, G.W. Bush 265, Nader 1 Method 12: G.W. Bush 271, Gore 267 1996: Quote Method 1: B. Clinton 265, Dole 219, Perot 45, Nader 4, Browne 3, Phillips 1, Hagelin 1 Method 2: B. Clinton 265, Dole 220, Perot 45, Nader 4, Browne 3, Phillips 1 Method 3: B. Clinton 267, Dole 220, Perot 45, Nader 3, Browne 2, Phillips 1 Method 4: B. Clinton 265, Dole 224, Perot 48, Nader 1 Method 5: B. Clinton 279, Dole 233, Perot 25, Nader 1 Method 6: B. Clinton 268, Dole 224, Perot 45, Nader 1 Method 7: B. Clinton 279, Dole 233, Perot 25, Nader 1 Method 8: B. Clinton 280, Dole 233, Perot 24, Nader 1 Method 9: B. Clinton 367, Dole 171 Method 10: B. Clinton 365, Dole 167, Perot 6 Method 11: B. Clinton 359, Dole 158, Perot 21 Method 12: B. Clinton 379, Dole 159 1992: Quote Method 1: B. Clinton 231, G.H.W. Bush 202, Perot 102, Marrou 2, Gritz 1 Method 2: B. Clinton 232, G.H.W. Bush 202, Perot 102, Marrou 2 Method 3: B. Clinton 233, G.H.W. Bush 202, Perot 102, Marrou 1 Method 4: B. Clinton 236, G.H.W. Bush 197, Perot 105 Method 5: B. Clinton 242, G.H.W. Bush 207, Perot 89 Method 6: B. Clinton 240, G.H.W. Bush 204, Perot 93, Gritz 1 Method 7: B. Clinton 243, G.H.W. Bush 210, Perot 85 Method 8: B. Clinton 240, G.H.W. Bush 204, Perot 94 Method 9: B. Clinton 246, G.H.W. Bush 202, Perot 90 Method 10: B. Clinton 239, G.H.W. Bush 196, Perot 103 Method 11: B. Clinton 239, G.H.W. Bush 195, Perot 104 Method 12: B. Clinton 370, G.H.W. Bush 168 1980: Quote Method 1: Reagan 273, Carter 221, Anderson 36, Clark 6, Commoner 2 Method 2: Reagan 274, Carter 221, Anderson 36, Clark 6, Commoner 1 Method 3: Reagan 275, Carter 222, Anderson 35, Clark 5, Commoner 1 Method 4: Reagan 276, Carter 223, Anderson 37, Clark 2 Method 5: Reagan 294, Carter 226, Anderson 18 Method 6: Reagan 276, Carter 218, Anderson 41, Clark 3 Method 7: Reagan 297, Carter 222, Anderson 19 Method 8: Reagan 291, Carter 228, Anderson 19 Method 9: Reagan 395, Carter 141, Anderson 2 Method 10: Reagan 393, Carter 139, Anderson 6 Method 11: Reagan 385, Carter 134, Anderson 19 Method 12: Reagan 489, Carter 49 My goal is to do every post-Civil War election and then write up something formal about this. If reform were to ever occur, it'd have to be done at a national level. But based on what I've done so far, I would be in favor of one of Methods 7 thru 11. I think 9 thru 11 would receive better reception since it'd be easy to explain to the vast majority of people that don't understand how math works. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: QAnonKelly on June 20, 2018, 10:26:29 PM Wouldn't this just hurt big blue and heavily minority states?
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Dr. MB on June 22, 2018, 10:26:08 PM Wouldn't this just hurt big blue and heavily minority states? Also must mention Texas. It's essentially a tradeoff: the Dems give up some CA, NY, IL, etc. electoral votes in exchange for votes in Texas and the rest of the south. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: defe07 on July 14, 2018, 12:22:25 PM I would support a proportional system where each state would allocate EV with the Hare Quota and any unfilled seats would be allocated proportionally nationwide using remainder votes and surplus votes from the states.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!" on August 13, 2018, 07:50:50 PM It's time for the popular vote to determine the President. Period.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: muon2 on August 23, 2018, 11:29:34 AM It's time for the popular vote to determine the President. Period. I still contend that it should require a runoff if there is no majority, as France does for its president. A plurality president would not be advisable when the executive has such strong powers. We often overlook that since the two party system is so ingrained. But there's nothing that prevents the US from having more than two strong parties (perhaps except the EC). Parliamentary democracies don't have to worry about that since a government needs over 50% of the members to form. If there is no one majority party then the formation of a coalition government functions as a runoff. That's a built-in check on the power of a plurality executive. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!" on August 23, 2018, 11:33:56 AM It's time for the popular vote to determine the President. Period. I still contend that it should require a runoff if there is no majority, as France does for its president. A plurality president would not be advisable when the executive has such strong powers. We often overlook that since the two party system is so ingrained. But there's nothing that prevents the US from having more than two strong parties (perhaps except the EC). Parliamentary democracies don't have to worry about that since a government needs over 50% of the members to form. If there is no one majority party then the formation of a coalition government functions as a runoff. That's a built-in check on the power of a plurality executive. I don't know if I would agree to this, but I would say that if the top two candidates get over 90% combined, there should not be a runoff. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: muon2 on August 23, 2018, 11:50:05 AM It's time for the popular vote to determine the President. Period. I still contend that it should require a runoff if there is no majority, as France does for its president. A plurality president would not be advisable when the executive has such strong powers. We often overlook that since the two party system is so ingrained. But there's nothing that prevents the US from having more than two strong parties (perhaps except the EC). Parliamentary democracies don't have to worry about that since a government needs over 50% of the members to form. If there is no one majority party then the formation of a coalition government functions as a runoff. That's a built-in check on the power of a plurality executive. I don't know if I would agree to this, but I would say that if the top two candidates get over 90% combined, there should not be a runoff. Should that still be true if the candidates were statistically tied with neither over 50%. By statistically tied I mean that given the limits of our accuracy of vote counting the winner can only be determined by arbitrary means such as stopping the count on some particular day. The Franken - Coleman race in 2008 was such a statistical tie as was the presidential vote in FL in 2000. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: NewFederalist on August 23, 2018, 03:48:10 PM Actually, any state can alter the way they select their presidential electors. There is nothing to prevent them from being selected by the legislature (as was the case with South Carolina until 1860). Any form of proportional division or by congressional district or whatever. The National Popular Vote plan which has now passed 12 state legislatures is another. As long as civil rights laws are not in conflict with whatever method it appears this is one of the last areas where states' rights are not usurped by the US government.
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: morgankingsley on August 25, 2018, 03:38:24 AM I remember doing this for 1984 and Mondale would end up with 206 electoral votes
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: morgankingsley on August 29, 2018, 04:32:56 AM I did two of them, 1924 and 1984.
Here is the one for 1924 () Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: J. J. on September 10, 2018, 11:02:34 AM Has anyone done this based of CD's, i.e. the winner of a CD gets one electoral vote, and the winner of the state gets two electoral votes?
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: morgankingsley on September 10, 2018, 10:20:10 PM I did one for 1984. If I remember correctly, Mondale gets 64 electoral votes, and I also did a mcgovern one but he only got 27
Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: pbrower2a on November 18, 2018, 07:47:30 PM It's up to each state to determine how it will award electoral votes to candidates. Not quite. Even the practice of allotting electoral votes based upon Congressional districts would be suspect in many states. Maine and Nebraska can get away with it because the states have distinct parts, and nobody is splitting up the state to splinter the urban vote to dilute it with rural areas. Let us remember that people rarely know where the boundaries of Congressional districts are. County lines are well established almost everywhere, and you will see signs identifying township lines on major highways. Congressional districts can change every ten years due to reapportionment. People from outside Michigan would never know the division between the 6th and 7th Congressional districts by reading a road sign separating the districts. Allotting all electoral votes by winner-take-all has been the norm since before the Civil War, so it has been done. If states deem that they will allot their votes in accordance with the national popular vote, that seems to be legal even if such has not yet been done. Some methods would be unacceptable. The decision of a Governor or the vote of a state legislature would surely not pass Constitutional muster. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Xeuma on November 18, 2018, 08:13:35 PM It's up to each state to determine how it will award electoral votes to candidates. Not quite. Even the practice of allotting electoral votes based upon Congressional districts would be suspect in many states. Maine and Nebraska can get away with it because the states have distinct parts, and nobody is splitting up the state to splinter the urban vote to dilute it with rural areas. Let us remember that people rarely know where the boundaries of Congressional districts are. County lines are well established almost everywhere, and you will see signs identifying township lines on major highways. Congressional districts can change every ten years due to reapportionment. People from outside Michigan would never know the division between the 6th and 7th Congressional districts by reading a road sign separating the districts. Allotting all electoral votes by winner-take-all has been the norm since before the Civil War, so it has been done. If states deem that they will allot their votes in accordance with the national popular vote, that seems to be legal even if such has not yet been done. Some methods would be unacceptable. The decision of a Governor or the vote of a state legislature would surely not pass Constitutional muster. Actually the vote of the state legislature was exactly how it was done up until the Civil War. No amendments have changed that since. It is entirely up to the legislature on how to award its state's electoral votes. Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Minnesota Mike on March 16, 2019, 02:45:12 PM It's up to each state to determine how it will award electoral votes to candidates. Not quite. Even the practice of allotting electoral votes based upon Congressional districts would be suspect in many states. Maine and Nebraska can get away with it because the states have distinct parts, and nobody is splitting up the state to splinter the urban vote to dilute it with rural areas. Let us remember that people rarely know where the boundaries of Congressional districts are. County lines are well established almost everywhere, and you will see signs identifying township lines on major highways. Congressional districts can change every ten years due to reapportionment. People from outside Michigan would never know the division between the 6th and 7th Congressional districts by reading a road sign separating the districts. Allotting all electoral votes by winner-take-all has been the norm since before the Civil War, so it has been done. If states deem that they will allot their votes in accordance with the national popular vote, that seems to be legal even if such has not yet been done. Some methods would be unacceptable. The decision of a Governor or the vote of a state legislature would surely not pass Constitutional muster. Actually the vote of the state legislature was exactly how it was done up until the Civil War. No amendments have changed that since. It is entirely up to the legislature on how to award its state's electoral votes. There were all sorts of methods for allocating EV in the early days of the country. State legislatures doing the picking of electors was the most common to start. South Carolina used this method up until the Civil War. Some states divided the state into districts that each elected one Elector ( a state with 5 EV would be divided into 5 districts). Tennessee used a system where each county would select delegates to district conventions which in turn would select Electors. In 1892 Michigan elected it's Electors by congressional district with 2 ALelectors being selected statewide. Long story short it is up to the states how they want to select Presidential Electors, just because it has been done almost elusively by statewide popular vote for the past 150 years does not mean other methods are prohibited. A nice history of the Electoral College. https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html Title: Re: What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally? Post by: Minnesota Mike on March 16, 2019, 10:13:31 PM It's up to each state to determine how it will award electoral votes to candidates. Not quite. Even the practice of allotting electoral votes based upon Congressional districts would be suspect in many states. Maine and Nebraska can get away with it because the states have distinct parts, and nobody is splitting up the state to splinter the urban vote to dilute it with rural areas. Let us remember that people rarely know where the boundaries of Congressional districts are. County lines are well established almost everywhere, and you will see signs identifying township lines on major highways. Congressional districts can change every ten years due to reapportionment. People from outside Michigan would never know the division between the 6th and 7th Congressional districts by reading a road sign separating the districts. Allotting all electoral votes by winner-take-all has been the norm since before the Civil War, so it has been done. If states deem that they will allot their votes in accordance with the national popular vote, that seems to be legal even if such has not yet been done. Some methods would be unacceptable. The decision of a Governor or the vote of a state legislature would surely not pass Constitutional muster. Actually the vote of the state legislature was exactly how it was done up until the Civil War. No amendments have changed that since. It is entirely up to the legislature on how to award its state's electoral votes. There were all sorts of methods for allocating EV in the early days of the country. State legislatures doing the picking of electors was the most common to start. South Carolina used this method up until the Civil War. Some states divided the state into districts that each elected one Elector ( a state with 5 EV would be divided into 5 districts). Tennessee used a system where each county would select delegates to district conventions which in turn would select Electors. In 1892 Michigan elected it's Electors by congressional district with 2 ALelectors being selected statewide. Long story short it is up to the states how they want to select Presidential Electors, just because it has been done almost elusively by statewide popular vote for the past 150 years does not mean other methods are prohibited. A nice history of the Electoral College. https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html I think something like a vote of the state legislature that doesn't involve citizens directly casting votes could be successfully challenged under one of the 14th/15th/19th Amendments, though. That sort of method has not been used since any of those amendments were adopted. EV proportional to PV should be fine, and EV by CD + 2 "Senator" EVs statewide (ME/NE system) is likely fine (although I don't think SCOTUS has ever ruled on it and it would be immediately challenged if adopted in a gerrymandered large state). The Colorado legislature awarded it's EV in 1876 after the 14th and 15th amendments passed. |