If all states were to use the ME/NE system, then Obama would have won, 301-237

[RIP Robert H Bork]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003078061&mp=Most_Viewed

Obtained from the March 23 2009 report of Electoral-vote.com: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Mar23-s.html

It is frequently asked, what would be the outcome of the election if all states were to allocate electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska instead of using the much more common winner takes all system. The results: Obama would still win, but it would be a much closer 301-237 instead of 365-173.

What do you think?

[Smid]

I think Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2004, too.

[Purple State]

It helps to have a block-solid South.

[defe07]

I'd prefer the ME/NE system but I think the idea of having Presidential Elector districts would be cool. For example, Delaware or Tennessee would allocate their EVs by counties. Thus, maybe an independent like Perot could stand a better chance.

[Hashemite]

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

[Smid]

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

I agree. I think gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be addressed first, or simultaneously to reforming to the ME/NE method. If a state reformed to the ME/NE method first, it would create even less incentive to reform its redistricting procedure to remove the gerrymander.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

[Prez Duke]

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

Yeah. He definitely did in a lot of areas. He was the strongest candidate we could field, after all.

[Bo]

And Bush would have won by larger margins in both 2000 and 2004.

[segwaystyle2012]

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

Yeah. He definitely did in a lot of areas. He was the strongest candidate we could field, after all.

Not at all.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

Yeah. He definitely did in a lot of areas. He was the strongest candidate we could field, after all.

Not at all.

Who do you think was the strongest Republican candidate in 2008, then?

[N.i.K.]

No, the strongest candidate certainly was McCain. Giuliani was hated by the base (Although McCain was disliked, he wasn't as liberal as Giuliani and was acceptable), Romney had the businessman shtick, during the worst economic catastrophe since the 1930s he would have been destroyed. Huckabee was likeable, but the polls showed him losing by double digits, only really appealed to the evangelicals, and is disliked by much of the mainstream conservatives.

Really, McCain, a war hero with tremendous experience, was the only one of the candidates who ran could win.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

Exactly. This would only make the already crappy electoral college worse.

[Jensen]

No, the strongest candidate certainly was McCain. Giuliani was hated by the base (Although McCain was disliked, he wasn't as liberal as Giuliani and was acceptable), Romney had the businessman shtick, during the worst economic catastrophe since the 1930s he would have been destroyed. Huckabee was likeable, but the polls showed him losing by double digits, only really appealed to the evangelicals, and is disliked by much of the mainstream conservatives.

Really, McCain, a war hero with tremendous experience, was the only one of the candidates who ran could win.

McCain couldn't even run a campaign, let alone the country. In fact, if my state wasn't a guaranteed lock for Obama, I have no idea where my vote would have gone.

[muon2]

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

I agree, but this could be remedied. Congress mandated single-member districts in 1967. The original bill introduced then would have provided for non-gerrymandered redistricting as well. If Congress could pass that law today, the ME/NE system would be more attractive.

[Vepres]

Interestingly, Obama would win about 55.9% of the electoral votes, far closer to the actual results.

[I left.]

Interestingly, Obama would win about 55.9% of the electoral votes, far closer to the actual results.

I support a direct national popular vote....but the district method is too vulnerable to gerrymandering.

[Vepres]

Interestingly, Obama would win about 55.9% of the electoral votes, far closer to the actual results.

I support a direct national popular vote....but the district method is too vulnerable to gerrymandering.

Obviously this is only a viable system if every state has a non-partisan commissions. I was just making an observation, that's all.

[Californian Tony]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

[timmer123]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

[Californian Tony]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

[Vepres]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

[Californian Tony]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

[Χahar]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

Incorrect. If every district was 50-50, and the election result was 55-45, then every seat would go to the winning party.

[Californian Tony]

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

Incorrect. If every district was 50-50, and the election result was 55-45, then every seat would go to the winning party.

True, but it would be fairer so than otherwise.
Another possibility is to draw districts which are all 90-10 for one party or the other, but I guess it's quite difficult to do (plus, it destroys competitivity and therefore favors incumbents).