What if electoral votes were assigned to congressional districts - not states?

[Gustaf]

Well...it would've increased Bush's majority in 2000. So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work the way one would've hoped.

[Gustaf]

Well...it would've increased Bush's majority in 2000. So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work the way one would've hoped.

unless you are a Republican.

Lol, his point was that it would lead to higher correlation between winning the PV and the EV.

[Gustaf]

Yes, aligning EV and PV is the primary -- and overriding -- objective.  

But there might be other interesting and positive effects.  For instance, it is suddenly just as important to carry Cong. Dist. #3 in Mississippi as it is to carry Cong Dist #24 in California.  Cong Districts ARE distributed on the basis of population, and theoretically should have equal values.  

It's only the winner-take-all phenomenon of the current system that demotes Cong Dist's in smaller states to the electoral equivalent of Latvia.

Oh, yeah, a detail.  The winner take all system would still control 2 votes per state, i.e., the two votes associated with Senate seats, rather than Cong Districts.

Yeah, well that would've increased Bush majority in 2000, so it wouldn't realign PV with EV, I'm afraid.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf:  First, I couldn't care less which party "benefits" from this idea.  If it aligns PV and EV, that is enuf.  

Second, how do you know it would have helped Bush?  That's the question I'm asking.  Where is the District by District data base.  If you have it, I'll be happy to look at it.  

The point of checking out the data base is to test my assumption that the Dist by Dist system would in fact align PV and EV -- without all the political gnashing of teeth associated with trying to reallocate electoral votes from one state to the next.

So please tell us how you know what the result would have been in 2004.  I would honestly like to know.

Oh, I'm not talking about what party benefits. My point is that since Bush lost the PV in 2000 and would have increased his EV margin under this system, it would not realign them.

We have, as you suspected, discussed this before, and it was asserted then. You can check the maps here if you like, and count them manually, lol. I'm not entirely sure where to find the info, but as I recall Bush would've gotten something like 285 under this system.

[Gustaf]

Firstly, Abruzzi welcome to the board !

Secondly, you can find a analysis of Presidential election results by downloading this report ( it is in acrobat reader format). It details all election from 1952 to 2000 if they were done by the method you were suggesting.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c20z.pdf

What would change in the CD method

1960:
Nixon: 279
Kennedy:250
Ind Dem (Byrd): 5

(No defections)

1976
Carter:269
Ford:269

As for 2000 Bush would win by a larger margin 288-250

That's interesting...it would make things worse in all cases then.

[Gustaf]

Firstly, Abruzzi welcome to the board !

Secondly, you can find a analysis of Presidential election results by downloading this report ( it is in acrobat reader format). It details all election from 1952 to 2000 if they were done by the method you were suggesting.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c20z.pdf

What would change in the CD method

1960:
Nixon: 279
Kennedy:250
Ind Dem (Byrd): 5

(No defections)

1976
Carter:269
Ford:269

As for 2000 Bush would win by a larger margin 288-250

That's interesting...it would make things worse in all cases then.

seconded lol.

For the record, I didn't mean worse as in 'Republcians winning', but worse as in the EV and the PV differing more than oterwise.