Who would have won 2000 under different election systems?

[Nym90]

I agree that Gore's attempts to distance himself from Clinton were a mistake. He should have run on Clinton's economic record and not tried to run away from the President the way that he did.

[Nym90]

No, there is a difference in the Senate in that each Senator is elected in a seperate election within each state, whereas the Presidential Election is one election nationally. The analogy would be more proper if Senators or Governors were each elected by an EC system within each state, but nowhere else in the country is that system used other than in electing the President. Every other election in the nation is decided by popular vote except for one.

[Nym90]

That's true, Senators were appointed by the Legislature until 1912 (I believe), and that is a valid comparison, but that was eliminated because it was perceived to be fairer to allow the people to decide directly rather than have the more parliamentary system of electing Senators that we had before. So I'd say that analogy makes sense in support of deciding the election by the popular vote.

[Nym90]

I don't see how you can say that the Electoral College should have helped Gore. Bush won 9 more states than Gore, and thus got a bonus of 18 electoral votes. That's what put him over the top. The EC has a bias in favor of whichever candidate wins the most states, regardless of size. Also, it biases in favor of candidates who win states narrowly, and thus 500 votes in Florida equated to 25 votes in the EC to put Bush over the top as well.