Who would have won 2000 under different election systems?

[jravnsbo]

I'd say the EC has worked 100% of the time.  2 time spopular vote winner has not taken office, bt that is not the design the Founding Fathers intended.  So the design they made has always worked.

[NorthernDog]

It's interesting that the European Union can't ratify a constitution specifically because of the proportional representation issue that we are discussing here.  Perhaps they could use our Electoral College as a blueprint?

[jravnsbo]

But if we did that the media couldn't tell us how all the socialist states of Europe are so much better than us almost daily!!

[Gustaf]

It's interesting that the European Union can't ratify a constitution specifically because of the proportional representation issue that we are discussing here.  Perhaps they could use our Electoral College as a blueprint?

The issue is basically how supranational the EU should be, since the more proportional the system gets, the less influence for individual countries (especially smalle ones).

[© tweed]

Gore.Gore.Gore!!!

Why do you say that?  Why do you like Al Gore?  Please, you have to start explaining yourself John.

[00tim]

Bush would have won regardless of the system. The EC actually should have helped Gore. Gore got the most out of the urbanites who were voting whereas with Bush had there been a strickly popular vote I think he would have been able to get much more out of the states he won.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

And, it gives DC less representation, thus favoring the Reps, who never wins DC.

[© tweed]

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.

And, it gives DC less representation, thus favoring the Reps, who never wins DC.

What's that?  DC didn't even have electors until an amendment passed for them.

[Gustaf]

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.

And, it gives DC less representation, thus favoring the Reps, who never wins DC.

What's that?  DC didn't even have electors until an amendment passed for them.

Well, it was even worse back then, but DC is not allowed to have more electors than any state, so even if it becomes as big as California it wouls still only get 3 electors.

[© tweed]

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.

And, it gives DC less representation, thus favoring the Reps, who never wins DC.

What's that?  DC didn't even have electors until an amendment passed for them.

Well, it was even worse back then, but DC is not allowed to have more electors than any state, so even if it becomes as big as California it wouls still only get 3 electors.

Hey, it's something.  the Republicans would never have voted for the amendment if it wasn't alnted towrads them somehow.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I specifically remember pundits in 2000 predicting that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the Electoral vote.

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.

[© tweed]

I specifically remember pundits in 2000 predicting that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the Electoral vote.

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.

That's what my dad predicted.  I had Gore losing both.

[Gustaf]

I specifically remember pundits in 2000 predicting that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the Electoral vote.

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.

Yeah, I remember that too. The interesting thing is, i also remember Bush saying that if he won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote, he would demand that the electors vote for him anyway. Of course, he didn't view it that way after the election...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I thought that Bush would win what he did plus PA, DE, WA, OR, MI, WI, MN, IA, ME and NJ...

[zorkpolitics]

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.

And, it gives DC less representation, thus favoring the Reps, who never wins DC.

The EC gives DC residents a tremendous bonus: 2 extra EV to the Democrats!
  If DC was returned to MD (like the VA part of DC was in 1846) then DC residents would add 1 EV to MD, a net loss of 2 democratic EV (DC will never vote Republican).

[jravnsbo]

But that is also a reason it will never get representation in Congress.

Plus it was intended to be seperate.

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.

And, it gives DC less representation, thus favoring the Reps, who never wins DC.

The EC gives DC residents a tremendous bonus: 2 extra EV to the Democrats!
  If DC was returned to MD (like the VA part of DC was in 1846) then DC residents would add 1 EV to MD, a net loss of 2 democratic EV (DC will never vote Republican).

[jaichind]

The 2000 Republic of China election for President is a excellent example of how different systems leads to different result.  DPP candidate Chen won with 39% of the vote, KMT Lien captured 23% while KMT rebel Soong captured 37%.  Of the 25 counties and cities on Taiwan Province and parts of Fujian Province that ROC currently controls, Soong carried 15 of them including 5 of the 6 largest counties/cities.  An electoral college system would have given Soong a victory.  Post election polls showed that 6% of the vote switched from Lien to Soong to prevent a Chen victory and 5% of the vote switched from Lien to Chen to stop a Soong victory.  In a two round absolute majority system where the need to switch votes to "stop" anyone is not needed in the first round, it would have been Lien 34%, Chen 34%, Soong 31%.  In a Lien-Chen runoff, almost all of the Soong vote would have gone to Lien.  So in a two round absolute majority system like France, Lien would have won the election.  

Just like the 2000 US election, a different system would have meant different election campaigns and the results would really unknown.  But it could have changed the result, just like the 2000 USA election for President.

[minionofmidas]

IF votes had been cast the way they were under a proportional system, the outcome is
Bush 268
Gore 267
Nader 3

This is under the d'Hondt method, which
-I used because it's the one method I can easily use without any electronic help
-is the most widely used method in the world
-slightly favors major candidates, which makes it likely that, if any, this method would have been adopted. Other methods would result in many more Nader electors.  Note that there is no majority. IF we believe that this would have thrown the election into the house this means Bush wins ayway  (unless Nader strikes a deal with the Dems and the Nader electors vote Gore). However, other tie-breakers are imaginable.

I also used the 1990s electoral College votes allocation. this is the one really used, the only one available on the day of the General election, but not the most accurate one. The 2000s electoral College represents the population of America's states in 2000, after all. Using the 2000 allocation should likely result in direct Bush victory.

[minionofmidas]

Checked that last claim...doesn't work out. the final tally is exactly the same as
the Republicans pick up additional votes in az, co, FL, GA, NV, NC and TX but lose votes in IL, IN, mI, NY, OH, OK and PA
while the Democrats pick up votes in AZ, CA, Fl, GA and TX but lose votes in CT, MS, NY, PA and WI.

[minionofmidas]

I just looked over the results for 1996, 1992 and (don't ask why) 1912 under that system.
1996
Clinton 280
Dole 233
Perot 24
Nader 1
Clinton wins.

1992
Clinton 240
Bush 204
perot 94
Hung

1912
Wilson 271
Roosevelt 134
Taft 112
Debs 13
wilson wins

[minionofmidas]

1968
Nixon 238
Humphrey 233
Wallace 67

1976
Carter 275
Ford 263

1924
Coolidge 271
Davis 191
LaFollette 69

[Gustaf]

Checked that last claim...doesn't work out. the final tally is exactly the same as
the Republicans pick up additional votes in az, co, FL, GA, NV, NC and TX but lose votes in IL, IN, mI, NY, OH, OK and PA
while the Democrats pick up votes in AZ, CA, Fl, GA and TX but lose votes in CT, MS, NY, PA and WI.

What last claim? Yours?

[minionofmidas]

Checked that last claim...doesn't work out. the final tally is exactly the same as
the Republicans pick up additional votes in az, co, FL, GA, NV, NC and TX but lose votes in IL, IN, mI, NY, OH, OK and PA
while the Democrats pick up votes in AZ, CA, Fl, GA and TX but lose votes in CT, MS, NY, PA and WI.

What last claim? Yours?

Yep.

[Gustaf]

Checked that last claim...doesn't work out. the final tally is exactly the same as
the Republicans pick up additional votes in az, co, FL, GA, NV, NC and TX but lose votes in IL, IN, mI, NY, OH, OK and PA
while the Democrats pick up votes in AZ, CA, Fl, GA and TX but lose votes in CT, MS, NY, PA and WI.

What last claim? Yours?

Yep.

Thanks, I got confused there for a while...