Who would have won 2000 under different election systems?

[Ryan]

There was an interesting discussion in the old forum about who would have won in 2000 under the District Plan, Proportional Plan, Direct Election Plan, and National Bonus Plan.

Since it was a discussion in its infancy and I think there are new members here. I am posting a couple of threads which contain the gist in case anyone wishes to join it.

[Ryan]

Here are a couple websites I came up with: http://gning.org/electoral.html and http://www.reformamericainc.org/electoralcollege.shtml .  When the second site says "The Maine System" it means the district plan, because Maine and Nebraska each use that system.  When the first site says "Electoral College with Popular Vote Bonus" I think that is the National Bonus Plan.  I have a book at home that explored the issue and I remember reading that Bush would have won by a larger electoral margin under the District Plan and that he would also have won under the proportional plan.  Gore, of course, would have won under the Direct Election Plan, since he got the most popular votes.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A different election system would have meant a different campaign from Bush and Gore.

There is no way to be objective since you're not comparing apples to apples.

[Ryan]

I want to turn first to the Direct Election Plan which Gore would presumably have won since he took the popular vote in 2000. However if that were the basis of the election it would be a mistake of automatically assigning the election to Gore. That is by no means certain. One may have forgotten that both parties were out to win STATES not individual votes. A parties turnout in states it was certain it would lose and those it was certain it would win may have been lower than if they were trying to win the popular vote. Thus Bush may have under performed as regards total votes in a State like say South Carolina. There was no competition for the Presidency and no other competitive race such as for the House or Senate or Governor in 2000. Thus turnout may have been lower than normal and (it being a republican state) Bush would have been the main beneficiary of an increased turnout.
Of course one might argue the other way around and say Gore should have won states like Massachusetts by a higher margin in that case. Possibly, though I believe the distribution of competitive non-presidential elections around the country tended to encourage greater turnout in the states or areas where Gore had a higher % and thus benefitted him more as far as the popular vote goes.
Still, I do not say there was "no way" that Gore could have won the popular vote, only that if both the campaigns had been focused on turning out the vote nationwide instead of winning states, it would have been a whole new ball-game. One cannot simply assume because Gore won the vote in 2000 he would have been President if the election was based on the popular vote.

On the district plan Bush was the winner-228 to 207 but that makes no difference now since the districts have been redistricted. I don’t have the new figures yet.
On the question of whether the same logic used above still applies, as Kevin pointed out it certainly does. It too would have been a whole new ball-game. However I believe that the chances of Gore winning under a Congressional district plan are far less than Bush Winning under popular vote. This is because Republican voters are spread throughout the country more efficiently than Democratic voters are. In other words, Democrats have far more "wasted votes" than do Republicans because their voters tend to be more concentrated in (mostly urban) Democratic districts. For example, of the districts carried by Gore, he won 53 percent of them with 60 percent or more of the vote. In contrast, Bush won 60 percent of the vote or more in just 41 percent of the districts he carried. In short, Bush carried more districts, albeit with narrower margins. Taking a look at the districts which Gore MIGHT have picked up if he were trying to, I think that it would have been near impossible to overcome Bush’s 228 to 207 edge (that would require a Gore pickup of 11 seats plus the other seats that Bush may have managed to pick up if he was looking at winning a majority of Cd's)

Look forward to anyone else's input on this.

[Ryan]

A different election system would have meant a different campaign from Bush and Gore.

There is no way to be objective since you're not comparing apples to apples.

LOL Nice going dude, you said the same thing in two sentences that took me several dozen.

[Kevinstat]

I tend to agree with you, Ryan, that Bush would have likely won under both the plurality and district plans, but I also agree with jmfcst (and you) that there is no way to be sure since that kind of election never happened.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[NorthernDog]

I remember that Hillary Clinton introduced legislation to choose the President by popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (I wonder why?) Of course this idea went no where, but I'm wondering if any groups are still pushing this idea.  IMHO it's impossible to change, except for the way that electors are apportioned (such as ME and NE)
Is railing against the Electoral College strictly an academic exercise?  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't like the electoral collage, but there is no way that the small states will vote to remover their power.
So it's just academic I'm afraid.

[Ryan]

I was earlier opposed to the electoral college as well but after reading a lot of research on the subject I have changed my mind. Its not a perfect system but its the best available right now with far more benefits than one might realise.

Dave has an excellent article on the subject. I highly recommend everyone check out the link below

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

It doesnt have all the points I've encountered but it gets one thinking and is worth a look-up.

[NorthernDog]

Gore had 48.38% of the popular vote in 2000, compared to Clinton's 49.24% in 1996.  Can it be concluded that Gore made some kind of mistake in the campaign to lose (in % terms) a sliver of Democrat voters from '96?  
Shouldn't he have topped 50% of the popular vote easily?

[zorkpolitics]

Gore had 48.38% of the popular vote in 2000, compared to Clinton's 49.24% in 1996.  Can it be concluded that Gore made some kind of mistake in the campaign to lose (in % terms) a sliver of Democrat voters from '96?  
Shouldn't he have topped 50% of the popular vote easily?

Absolutely.  A series of Political scientists met in August 2000 and predicted a Gore win with 52 to 57% of the vote based on the state of the economy, lack of war, incumbency advantage, and summer polls.  Many have argued that Gore’s fairly inept campaigning, combined with his inability/unwillingness to properly use Clinton, cost him the election.  I tend to agree with that analysis.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

True. It cost Gore Arkansas and the election.

[Saratoga2DM]

I think the issue that cost Al Gore his home state in 2000 was Columbine and gun control.  He just kept pressing that issue throughout his campaign, and alienating many pro-gun Tennessee voters.
 

[jravnsbo]

Gore made Kerry look in touch and not aloof.  Gore's environmental and anti-gun stances killed him.  That plays well in NY and Cal which caused his popular vote win, but int he rest of the country that traditionally is not like those 2 states it did not play well.  Bush won 30 states to Gore's 20.  

[WONK]

If we do away with the EC, we might as well do away with the 2-per state system in the Senate, and make it proportional representation as well, since it's based on the same thing.

[jravnsbo]

EC isn't going anywhere.  There are 13 small states to block any ratification of a CA, and that is what it would take.  

Plus getting it through Congress isn't going to happen with 2/3 requirement if it didn't pass after 2000 election.

[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.

[jravnsbo]

Well see before CA changing the process the Senators were essentially appointed by the Legislature and so similiar comparisons could be made I guess with EC system.

[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.

[Cairo_East]

I say we use the BCS to decide the presidency.

[jravnsbo]

not funny!  HATES THE BCS!!!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

?

[jravnsbo]

RealPoliticik--

The BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series.  It is the system used to find the 2 top teams in College football and is VERY CONTROVERSIAL!  

Reference was b/c the BCS makes the Electoral college look like a cakewalk.

[Cairo_East]

Sorry to cause confusion in my vain attempt at humor.

To say it's very controversial is accurate.  We'd probably have elected John Hagelin with that system.


I all honesty, I think the electoral college works well.  It has worked, at worst, to 93% accuracy in the past 57 elections.  Any changes to the system would be criticized so much that the underpinnings of American democracy would be compromised.  

I'm not happy with the results of the 2000 election, but if the Democrats weren't so aimless in 2000 this wouldn't have been an issue.  It's also a tradeoff from the sketchy Kennedy-Nixon results in 1960.