|
Title: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on April 20, 2011, 09:20:28 PM Changes
Ballot: The ballot would be an alternative vote. Candidates will be ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. A minimum of 1 and 2 must be cast. This would be a federal law applying to all states, states can then design their ballots as needed. Numbers: The number of electoral college votes must always be an odd number to prevent ties. Counting: If a candidate does not win electoral votes in a state, then his or her ballots are redistributed, until the only ballots left are cast for candidates winning electoral votes. In the event of someone not getting a majority of electoral votes, the candidate with the least nationwide (ties to be broken by nationwide popular vote) is dropped, and the counting continues as such. The electoral college is based on the number of seats in the house and senate. 2 for the senate, and a number between 1 and 50something for the house. This will become important in the new election method system. The first-place winner of the state wins both "senatorial" electoral college votes. The remaining electoral votes are distributed proportionally to the vote received by each candidate. Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on April 21, 2011, 09:01:22 AM Example using 2008 (selected states)
Alaska. Winner: McCain (2) - McCain for winning the state (1) - McCain, proportional share of total RESULT: 3 McCain Utah. Winner: McCain (2) - McCain for winning the state (2) - McCain, proportional share of total (1) - Obama, proportional share of total RESULTS: 4 McCain - 1 Obama California. Winner: Obama (2) - Obama for winning the state (33) - Obama, proportional share of total (20) - McCain, proportional share of total RESULTS: 35 Obama - 20 McCain etc etc Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: tpfkaw on April 21, 2011, 09:53:58 AM There are a few problems I see with this (the big one is simply just to ask why not just switch to a national popular vote system...)
Look at Maine, 1992 (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=23&year=1992&f=0&off=0&elect=0). With only 316 votes separating Bush and Perot, it would hardly seem fair that Perot get an EV but not Bush (and also that 3/4 EVs go to Clinton with less than 40% of the vote). Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: tpfkaw on April 21, 2011, 02:07:28 PM Interestingly, this would not change the outcome of the 2000 election:
Alabama Bush: 6 Gore: 3 Alaska Bush: 3 Arizona Bush: 5 Gore: 3 Arkansas Bush: 4 Gore: 2 California Gore: 30 Bush: 22 Nader: 2 Colorado Bush: 5 Gore: 3 Connecticut Gore: 6 Bush: 2 Delaware Gore: 3 DC Gore: 3 Florida Bush: 13 Gore: 11 Nader: 1 Georgia Bush: 8 Gore: 5 Hawaii Gore: 3 Bush: 1 Idaho Bush: 3 Gore: 1 Illinois Gore: 13 Bush: 9 Indiana Bush: 8 Gore: 4 Iowa Gore: 5 Bush: 2 Kansas Bush: 4 Gore: 2 Kentucky Bush: 5 Gore: 3 Louisiana Bush: 6 Gore: 3 Maine Gore: 3 Bush: 1 Maryland Gore: 7 Bush: 3 Massachusetts Gore: 8 Bush: 3 Nader: 1 Michigan: Gore: 10 Bush: 8 Minnesota Gore: 6 Bush: 4 Mississippi Bush: 5 Gore: 2 Missouri Bush: 7 Gore: 4 Montana Bush: 3 Nebraska Bush: 4 Gore: 1 Nevada Bush: 3 Gore: 1 New Hampshire Bush: 3 Gore: 1 New Jersey Gore: 9 Bush: 5 Nader: 1 New Mexico Gore: 4 Bush: 1 New York Gore: 21 Bush: 11 Nader: 1 North Carolina Bush: 9 Gore: 5 North Dakota Bush: 3 Ohio Bush: 12 Gore: 9 Oklahoma Bush: 6 Gore: 2 Oregon Gore: 5 Bush: 2 Pennsylvania Gore: 13 Bush: 10 Rhode Island Gore: 3 Bush: 1 South Carolina Bush: 5 Gore: 3 South Dakota Bush: 3 Tennessee Bush: 7 Gore: 4 Texas Bush: 20 Gore: 11 Nader: 1 Utah Bush: 4 Gore: 1 Vermont Gore: 3 Virginia Bush: 8 Gore: 5 Washington Gore: 7 Bush: 4 West Virginia Bush: 4 Gore: 1 Wisconsin Gore: 6 Bush: 4 Nader: 1 Wyoming Bush: 3 Total Bush: 272 Gore: 258 Nader: 8 Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 22, 2011, 05:24:23 AM Makes sense, though I'd add a high threshold to access proportional seats (around 15% or so) in order to avoid vote dispersion and ensure an electoral majority.
Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: defe07 on August 31, 2011, 11:52:08 AM I would favor an Electoral College with small multi-member districts allocating Electors. Hopefully, districts of 3-5 EV would be the idea.
A three-EV district would elect all 3 Electors at-large; a four-EV district would elect 2 Electors at-large and 2 per district; a five-EV district would elect 2 Electors at-large and 3 per district. For example, California has 55 EV. It could have 5 3-seat districts, 5 4-seat districts and 4 5-seat districts. Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on August 31, 2011, 03:18:01 PM Still leaves the door open to gerrymandering.
Makes sense, though I'd add a high threshold to access proportional seats (around 15% or so) in order to avoid vote dispersion and ensure an electoral majority. X = "House" Electoral Votes (436) Y = "States" (51) Z = 8.55 round = 9 There are thus on average, 9 proportional seats in every state. 100 / 9 = 11.11% Thus the threshold should be 11.11% Title: Re: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College) Post by: defe07 on September 04, 2011, 03:28:47 PM Here's a proposal I came up with the other day.
It would mean that the set of candidates with the most votes wins. Nothing to do with VPs. If say a set with only 1 candidate wins, that candidate wins all the EV at stake. If a set with 2 candidates wins, those candidates split the EV equally. The following sets face each other: For example, 1992 Presidential Elections: Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot vs. Clinton-Bush vs. Clinton-Perot vs. Bush-Clinton vs. Bush-Perot vs. Perot-Clinton vs. Perot-Bush. |