My electoral college plan

[Harry]

How about this:
If a candidate wins of votes in a state, then he wins all of that state's electoral votes.
If no candidate wins a majority, then the states go by the ME/NE plan, which gives 2 to the plurality winner and 1 to each district's winner.  This way, candidates will be rewarded with a good bit if they can get a majority, and if there is no majority, then the electoral votes are split to reflect the closeness.
States with only 3 ev's/1 house district would just give their 3 to the plurality winner (these states, BTW, generally aren't close).

In 2000,
Gore would have picked up 12 in FL, 1 in NV, 1 in NH, and 8 in OH.
Bush would have picked up 3 in IA, 5 in MN, 3 in OR, and 4 in WI.
This would have led finally, to a narrow Gore victory.
Unfortunately, I cannot find election stats for other presidential elections, or i would share the winner of other elections using my plan.
My plan rewards candidates for winning majorities, and splits the votes of close states.
It is still possible, though more unlikely for a candidate to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote.
Do yall think this would be a more fair way of doing things?

[Harry]

Oh, and my final tally for 2000 was
Gore 273       (272 and 1 abstention?)
Bush 264
1 too close to call in FL

[Gustaf]

How about this:
If a candidate wins of votes in a state, then he wins all of that state's electoral votes.
If no candidate wins a majority, then the states go by the ME/NE plan, which gives 2 to the plurality winner and 1 to each district's winner.  This way, candidates will be rewarded with a good bit if they can get a majority, and if there is no majority, then the electoral votes are split to reflect the closeness.
States with only 3 ev's/1 house district would just give their 3 to the plurality winner (these states, BTW, generally aren't close).

In 2000,
Gore would have picked up 12 in FL, 1 in NV, 1 in NH, and 8 in OH.
Bush would have picked up 3 in IA, 5 in MN, 3 in OR, and 4 in WI.
This would have led finally, to a narrow Gore victory.
Unfortunately, I cannot find election stats for other presidential elections, or i would share the winner of other elections using my plan.
My plan rewards candidates for winning majorities, and splits the votes of close states.
It is still possible, though more unlikely for a candidate to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote.
Do yall think this would be a more fair way of doing things?

Well, it's an idea. A problem though. It would mean that third party candidates could upset thing rather a lot, since even if you win 50.001% v 49.999% you would still take it all, whereas if you win 49% v 20% and 31%, you would lose EVs, even though the first example was really much closer. But, yeah, maybe it's a good idea, I will have to ponder it for a while...

[Harry]

That is something to ponder
however, if it is 49-31-20, the candidate w/ 49% is likely to win most of the districts in the state.
Like in 2000, neither Gore nor Bush won a majority in Maine, but Gore won a plurality and both districts, so he would have still gotten all 4 votes.
If no candidate gets a majority, the votes can still go all to one candidate

[Gustaf]

That is something to ponder
however, if it is 49-31-20, the candidate w/ 49% is likely to win most of the districts in the state.
Like in 2000, neither Gore nor Bush won a majority in Maine, but Gore won a plurality and both districts, so he would have still gotten all 4 votes.
If no candidate gets a majority, the votes can still go all to one candidate

Yes, I realize that, so I am beginning to like your plan, it does make some sense...

[© Tweed the Younger]

It's a good plan, but needs to be tweaked of course.

[jravnsbo]

Like the current system with possibley the NE and ME exceptions.  Boy that would be interesting in CA and NY.

[Harry]

It's a good plan, but needs to be tweaked of course.

How would you tweak it?

[© Tweed the Younger]

It's a good plan, but needs to be tweaked of course.

How would you tweak it?

I don't know.  But everything has to be tweaked.

[Harry]

If anyone knows of a site that has congressional district results for any election year other than 2000, or if Dave could put some of those up, then i'd compile who would have won in other years under my plan.  It may (or may not) have made a difference in 1992.

[Gustaf]

If anyone knows of a site that has congressional district results for any election year other than 2000, or if Dave could put some of those up, then i'd compile who would have won in other years under my plan.  It may (or may not) have made a difference in 1992.

Aren't there these numbers on this site?? I thought so.

[Harry]

If anyone knows of a site that has congressional district results for any election year other than 2000, or if Dave could put some of those up, then i'd compile who would have won in other years under my plan.  It may (or may not) have made a difference in 1992.

Aren't there these numbers on this site?? I thought so.

Well, these aren't on the site in congressional districts.
BTW, 1992 would be quite interesting as only DC and AR had majorities.  Most election years do not have this unusualness, though.

[Gustaf]

If anyone knows of a site that has congressional district results for any election year other than 2000, or if Dave could put some of those up, then i'd compile who would have won in other years under my plan.  It may (or may not) have made a difference in 1992.

Aren't there these numbers on this site?? I thought so.

Well, these aren't on the site in congressional districts.
BTW, 1992 would be quite interesting as only DC and AR had majorities.  Most election years do not have this unusualness, though.

No you're right. There are counties, though, that's what I was remembering. There are links there to election offices of states, maybe that would help. I think Clinton would probably have won anyway in 1992, since his margin was so big.

[Nym90]

http://www.polidata.org/maps/Cdpcpc92.gif
http://www.polidata.org/maps/Cdpcpc96.gif

These sites have maps that show who won each district in 1992 and 1996, but unfortunately they aren't extremely clear (too small).

[Gustaf]

http://www.polidata.org/maps/Cdpcpc92.gif
http://www.polidata.org/maps/Cdpcpc96.gif

These sites have maps that show who won each district in 1992 and 1996, but unfortunately they aren't extremely clear (too small).

Well, it seems to say that Clinton beat Bush 254-173 in districts. This is weird, b/c I though there were 435 altogether...

Anyway, Clinton beat Bush 33-18 in states (counting DC), which would increase his margin to 320-209 in the EC. So we would have got a similar result, but a much smaller margin for Clinton.

[Gustaf]

If anyone knows of a site that has congressional district results for any election year other than 2000, or if Dave could put some of those up, then i'd compile who would have won in other years under my plan.  It may (or may not) have made a difference in 1992.

Any time when there were a strong third party candidate, like 1996, 1968, 1960 or 1948. Not to mention 1912! That could be a fun what-if!

[Harry]

When i use my plan for 1996, I get Clinton 370, Dole 168.
It would not seem to make too much of a difference here, but in some it really would.

[Harry]

In 1988, it would have made no difference at all, as all states had a majority.
In 1984, it would have been worse for Mondale because Reagan won 49 majoritys and Mondale's one state he only had a plurality.

[Gustaf]

In 1988, it would have made no difference at all, as all states had a majority.
In 1984, it would have been worse for Mondale because Reagan won 49 majoritys and Mondale's one state he only had a plurality.

Hah! Poor Mondale...

[Harry]

In 1988, it would have made no difference at all, as all states had a majority.
In 1984, it would have been worse for Mondale because Reagan won 49 majoritys and Mondale's one state he only had a plurality.

Hah! Poor Mondale...

yeah, too bad.
even McGovern got a majority in MA