Colorado: another nail in the elctral collg coffin

[°Leprechaun]

I had to abbreviate my title.
The actual title is....

Colo. weighs proportional electoral votes:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/colorado/2004-08-16-colo-electoral_x.htm


"If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes. "

I will vote yes in the poll because although it would be unfair and add to the chaos unless *all* states adopted it, it would be the first step in reforming an archaic system.

[King]

It just changes the method of how electoral votes are counted...not the end of the college itself...infact if all 50 states used this method Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2000...

[elcorazon]

It just changes the method of how electoral votes are counted...not the end of the college itself...infact if all 50 states used this method Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2000...

Have you actually counted it?  I think you may be wrong.  This is not the Maine/Nebraska model; it is a proportional vote, meaning if a state like Wyoming with 3 electoral votes went  66-33 to Bush, then Bush would get 2 and Kerry 1.  I haven't gone state by state in 2000, but I doubt it would've helped Bush.  Somebody here do the math; I'm too lazy.

[minionofmidas]

Using this system - or indeed any proportional system I have checked that keeps the two EVs for Senators - 2000 would have gone into the House.

[elcorazon]

you are correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean Bush would have won.  Gore got more votes so in a proportional system, it would have been VERY close, I believe.  Gore won some big states by decent margins, so even though he would lose some EV's in those states, he may still win some by quite a bit (NY, e.g.).  Florida of course would have been 13-12 Bush.  I really want to do the math now, but I have no time.

OK, I decided to do the math.  I'm not sure how the rules would work, so I had to make some guesses and my VERY unscientific answer is:

Bush 267
Gore 263
Nader 8

leaving the results up to the house.  Of course, if the rules were not as I assumed, that COULD change things, but I'm guessing under any rules, no one gets 270 with proportional voting in each state.

[MODU]

It just changes the method of how electoral votes are counted...not the end of the college itself...infact if all 50 states used this method Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2000...

If every state casted their EV's based on the popular vote of their state, the results would have been:

Bush - 259 EVs
Gore - 258 EVs
Nader - 7 EVs
Other - 14 EVs

**** Damn . . . that was a pain in the butt spreadsheet to come up with.  hehehe ****

[Giant Saguaro]

No. In my honest objective opinion, all do it or none do it, not just one or two that would give Kerry or Bush a theoretical advantage. And since it would take a very long time for all to do it, if it's even possible, I vote no.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It just changes the method of how electoral votes are counted...not the end of the college itself...infact if all 50 states used this method Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2000...

If every state casted their EV's based on the popular vote of their state, the results would have been:

Bush - 259 EVs
Gore - 258 EVs
Nader - 7 EVs
Other - 14 EVs

**** Damn . . . that was a pain in the butt spreadsheet to come up with.  hehehe ****

Who is getting these other electoral votes?  The only place where anyone got more than 2% besides Bush, Gore, and Nader was Buchanan is North Dakota, which would have just split 2-1 for Bush.

[MODU]

Nick,

The remaining 14 EVs come from the "rounding effect." When you have so many third-party candidates, they all draw a little bit of the percentage away from the main contenders, so it's not unlikely to have these fractional EV's left over.  Without rounding (that is, if the states awarded frational EVs), the results would be:

Bush - 259.22
Gore - 258.25
Nader - 14.90

Total - 532.37 EVs
Remaining - 5.63 EVs shared by smaller third-party candidates

Now, if the states were to switch to this model, they would have to come up with a justified method of awarding the EVs evenly.  Say Colorado had 6 candidates for President, but only 3 of them pulled enough popular votes to qualify the awarding of EVs (say 2% of the popular vote).  The other three candidates would be dropped and the state would calculate the awarded EVs that way, ensuring all EVs have been awarded fairly.  Give me a little while, and I might adjust my spreadsheet for that method.

[elcorazon]

I just gave the "extra" votes to whoever came closest to deserving them.  I multiplied each candidates by the number of electoral votes then "rounded" each to the fairest number... for example if a state had 9 EV's and the calculation came out as follows:

Bush 4.47
Gore 3.27
Nader 0.22
others less

Then I gave Bush 5 and Gore 3, even though Bush only won 4 EV's.  That's how I ended up with my totals above.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here's the results I get using the proportional method nationwide in 2000:

Gore - 264
Bush - 263
Nader - 11
Others - 0

Nader gets 2 EVs in California, and 1 in CO, FL, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, OH, TX.

[Fritz]

I tried to calculate this myself, for California and Colorado.  I have some problems with the math.

California- 54 electoral votes:
Gore- 53.45% * 54 = 28.86, round to 29
Bush- 41.65% * 54 = 22.49, round to 22
Nader- 3.82% * 54 = 2.06, round to 2
29 + 22 + 2 = 53.  Where does the missing EV go?

Same thing in Colorado- 8 electoral votes:
Bush- 50.75% * 8 = 4.06, round to 4
Gore- 42.39% * 8 =3.39, round to 3
Nader- 5.25% * 8 = 0.42, round to 0

I guess NickG gave 23 to Bush in California, and as he said 1 to Nader in Colorado.

Edit: I should have read through this whole thread before posting this....

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I tried to calculate this myself, for California and Colorado.  I have some problems with the math.

California- 54 electoral votes:
Gore- 53.45% * 54 = 28.86, round to 29
Bush- 41.65% * 54 = 22.49, round to 22
Nader- 3.82% * 54 = 2.06, round to 2
29 + 22 + 2 = 53.  Where does the missing EV go?

Same thing in Colorado- 8 electoral votes:
Bush- 50.75% * 8 = 4.06, round to 4
Gore- 42.39% * 8 =3.39, round to 3
Nader- 5.25% * 8 = 0.42, round to 0

I guess NickG gave 23 to Bush in California, and as he said 1 to Nader in Colorado.

You don't round, you truncate.  This will leave you with 1 or 2 left over EVs in every state...you assign these to the one or two candidates with the highest remainders.

So in California:
Gore - 28.86
Bush - 22.49
Nader - 2.06

28+22+2 = 52, so you have two EVs left to assign.  These go to Gore (remainder .86) and Bush (remainder .49)

Gore 29, Bush 23, Nader 2 in CA.


In Colorado:
Gore  - 3.39
Bush - 4.06
Nader - 0.42

3+4+0=7, so 1 EVs is left to assign.  This goes to Nader, because he has the highest remainder.

So Gore 3, Bush 4, Nader 1 in CO.

[Fritz]

Anyways, if I lived in Colorado I would vote yes, for the purely political reason that it would favor the Democrat.  If this were proposed in my state, I would vote no, also for purely political reasons.

[© tweed]

Yes

[MODU]

Now, if the states were to switch to this model, they would have to come up with a justified method of awarding the EVs evenly.  Say Colorado had 6 candidates for President, but only 3 of them pulled enough popular votes to qualify the awarding of EVs (say 2% of the popular vote).  The other three candidates would be dropped and the state would calculate the awarded EVs that way, ensuring all EVs have been awarded fairly.  Give me a little while, and I might adjust my spreadsheet for that method.

Ok, taking into the above method of eliminating those who didn't get enough votes, we have:

Bush - 266
Gore - 266
Nader - 6

Odd . . . another tie.  HAHAHA

[khirkhib]

I don't think I like the plan.  The measure won't pass.  I don't know how I would vote on it if I lived in Colorado but I think that the candidates should have to with-in the established parameters.

[Posterity]

I voted no.  The numbers in this thread show why.  Can you imagine what would happen if the election was decided based on how the numbers were rounded (or truncated)?  Sheesh, it would be worse than Florida in 2000.

However, I do like the methods used by Maine and Nebraska.  That's better than winner-take-all, IMO.

[Fritz]

The Maine-Nebraska method sounds sensible, but historically there have been a couple of elections recently that would have been won by the loser, if this method were being used in every state.  I am not 100% sure, but I think this was the case in 1960 and 1976.  Because of that, I favor keeping things as they are.  In fact I think Maine and Nebraska should come back to winner-take-all, the rules should be the same in every state.

[elcorazon]

I voted no.  The numbers in this thread show why.  Can you imagine what would happen if the election was decided based on how the numbers were rounded (or truncated)?  Sheesh, it would be worse than Florida in 2000.

However, I do like the methods used by Maine and Nebraska.  That's better than winner-take-all, IMO.

Well, I actually think that those rules would be determined in advance and it would work out fine.  The problem would be no one would understand it, kinda like the primaries, where no one understands why candidates get the delegates they get.  Fortunately, the primaries are never close enough to where anyone would even care about such minutae, but the general election would be a different matter.

2000 actually wasn't such a fiasco in that regard.  

The problem would actually be that there could be WAY more states where a very small number of votes could impact 1 electoral vote, and when the election is close that could be a real pain... not to mention the lack of a clear winner if no one gets 270, which is VERY unlikely with our current system... I'm not sure that all that makes it bad, however.

Truth is, this'll never happen.  Even if Colorado approves it, they'll eventually scrap it when no one else does it... and no one else'll do it.

[IowaLibert]

Even if Colorado approves it, they'll eventually scrap it when no one else does it... and no one else'll do it.

There hasn't exactly been a rush to the Maine/Nebraska congressional district method, but they haven't changed back.

[Posterity]

I voted no.  The numbers in this thread show why.  Can you imagine what would happen if the election was decided based on how the numbers were rounded (or truncated)?  Sheesh, it would be worse than Florida in 2000.

However, I do like the methods used by Maine and Nebraska.  That's better than winner-take-all, IMO.

Well, I actually think that those rules would be determined in advance and it would work out fine.  The problem would be no one would understand it, kinda like the primaries, where no one understands why candidates get the delegates they get.  Fortunately, the primaries are never close enough to where anyone would even care about such minutae, but the general election would be a different matter.

2000 actually wasn't such a fiasco in that regard.  

Of course the rules would be determined in advance, but that doesn't mean people won't complain about them (or challenge them in court) if their guy happens to lose the election by a close margin.  The rules were set long before the 2000 election and yet some people still complain about that situation four years later.

[elcorazon]

I don't think anything Maine or Nebraska does will make a candidate really want to stump there or even be aware of issues particular to Nebraska.  Colorado and many other states have potential leverage as "swing" states.  If Colorado is the only state with this setup, it will always be a battle for only 1 EV, while if it keeps it's current setup, it will be a battle for 9 EVs.  Maine and NE have a different setup which actually makes it "potentially" a battle for the state (2 EV's) plus a battle for individual CD's.  

Side question:  when did NE and ME go to this system?  Have they ever split their EV's since doing so?

[Reignman]

not too many republicans posting on this thread.  probably because the electoral college got Bush in office, even though Gore got more votes than he did.

[sobo]

I'd probably vote for this no matter what state I lived in.  Even if it would hurt my canidate in the end, because although no other states would switch it is a start.  Although this would help Kerry, whom I support if implimented it will not be until next election, when I will probably support the Republican canidate.