mianfei
Jr. Member
Posts: 322
|
 |
« on: January 21, 2018, 05:27:08 PM » |
|
|
« edited: January 26, 2018, 04:17:21 PM by mianfei »
|
Being familiar with the differences between the US electoral system and that of my native Australia, I have (instinctively) felt that the 2016 result is less unfair to the Democrats than 2000.
Although Trump lost the popular vote by more than Bush, I have always felt that Gore was with the entirely electorate more preferred than was Hilary.
If the US used the “preferential” or “instant runoff” system which is used in Australia and requires each candidate to gain an absolute majority via distribution of preferences, I imagine that Gore would have carried FL and NH from the preferences of Nader voters. In 2016, by contrast, the preferences of minor parties would most likely have allowed Trump to retain all the states he won, plus NH, MN and possibly ME (Hilary keeping a vote from ME-1) and CO.
Were a second runoff election required in states with no majority, Trump would have gained an even stronger chance in CO and ME at large.
|
