[Recovering_Democrat]

Posted fyi. I thought it was interesting. Also encouraging, considering the popularity of the President now. He may have some coattails in 2002 and 2004 if he can continue keeping the public satisfied with his performance. :)

[Recovering_Democrat]

Oh yes, Needed to win: 270.

[snopercod]

If you have time on your hands, check out the former "county unit system" in Georgia.

[NYS_Eric]

I think it was Michael Barone who did a similar analysis, and on Brit Hume's show the other night when they were talking about redistricting (due to the census), I think they said that "Bush states" had a net gain of 7 or 8 seats over "Gore states".

So the news might even be rosier for 2004.

[jae471]

Final Vote: 283-264.

While I have no doubt that Bush would have won by a larger margin (the Red/Blue map is proof of this), these numbers don't add up.

There are 538 electoral votes (435 reps + 100 senators + 3 for DC). 283+264 = 547. Where did the extra 9 votes come from?

[Publius]

From 1788 to 1824, most states had their legislatures choose the members of the Electoral College. Those states that permitted voters to choose the Electors generally used the formula you have suggested. The election of 1824 was the last one where the legislatures chose Electors -- primarily because that election ended up in the House for a decision, and the House chose someone who did not have a plurality of either popular votes or electoral votes.

The two-party system as we know it today first came into being in the election of 1828. From then forward, states moved away from your formula to the winner-take-all formula we know today.

After the close call in 1968 where the election almost ended up in the House, Senators Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Karl Mundt of South Dakota -- both Republicans -- proposed a constitutional amendment that would have mandated your congressional district formula upon the states. Interest was high for a time but flagged in the mid-Seventies when a competing amendment was introduced that would have instituted true popular elections for president. Neither amendment got through Congress.

Maine and Nebraska have taken a good step toward electoral reform. I'd like to see the idea spread further.

[Publius]

From 1788 to 1824, most states had their legislatures choose the members of the Electoral College. Those states that permitted voters to choose the Electors generally used the formula you have suggested. The election of 1824 was the last one where the legislatures chose Electors -- primarily because that election ended up in the House for a decision, and the House chose someone who did not have a plurality of either popular votes or electoral votes.

The two-party system as we know it today first came into being in the election of 1828. From then forward, states moved away from your formula to the winner-take-all formula we know today.

After the close call in 1968 where the election almost ended up in the House, Senators Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Karl Mundt of South Dakota -- both Republicans -- proposed a constitutional amendment that would have mandated your congressional district formula upon the states. Interest was high for a time but flagged in the mid-Seventies when a competing amendment was introduced that would have instituted true popular elections for president. Neither amendment got through Congress.

Maine and Nebraska have taken a good step toward electoral reform. I'd like to see the idea spread further.

[muleboy]

thanks for the post.

As it stands now, the Presidential election is effectively 50 races instead of 1, which allows candidates to target specific states and write-off others.

In my opinion it would be much better if all other states adopted the Maine/Nebraska method. This would create a much more diverse and comprehensive Presidential campaign whereby candidates would attempt to pick off electoral votes within vast states, while giving voters in different congressional districts a more effective and representative vote.

[Straight Vermonter]

Dems would cry forever about this system because states with low populations like Alaska, and the Dakotas (all red states) are over represented in the House.

[GraniteStateConservative]

	ACTUAL RESULTS				MAINE-NEBRASKA RESULTS				DIFFERENCE IN PLANS
YEAR	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS	WINNER	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS	WINNER	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS
1960	303	219	15	Kennedy	252	280	5	Nixon	-51	61	-10
1964	486	52	0	Johnson	466	72	0	Johnson	-20	20	0
1968	191	301	46	Nixon	190	290	58	Nixon	-1	-11	12
1972	17	520	0	Nixon	62	476	0	Nixon	45	-44	-1
1976	297	240	1	Carter	269	269	0	Tie	-28	29	-1
1980	49	489	0	Reagan	141	397	0	Reagan	92	-92	0
1984	13	525	0	Reagan	69	469	0	Reagan	56	-56	0
1988	111	426	1	Bush	161	377	0	Bush	50	-49	-1
1992	370	168	0	Clinton	323	215	0	Clinton	-47	47	0
1996	379	159	0	Clinton	345	193	0	Clinton	-34	34	0
2000	266	271	1	Bush	250	288	0	Bush	-16	17	-1

[Illbay]

This was cussed and discussed at length back in 2000.

[Fish out of Water]

fyi

[Atlas Sneezed]

Just as I reply to those who talk about Gore winning the popular vote by reminding them if that were the rule, Bush would have campaigned harder to win more Texas votes, and the popular vote would have probably gone to him, I must note that if electoral votes were apportioned by district, the Democrats would have cheated differently, to make the results much closer than the numbers indicate.

[adingdangdoo]

I thought about the possibility of awarding electoral votes by Congressional Districts, and I think the Democrats would never go for it:

1) 100 votes would be awarded in fifty bundles of two. The Republicans have the edge here as they tend to win a larger number of smaller states, i.e. the states with less urban population. As George Will would put it, the Republicans win by playing "small ball" while the Democrats swing for the fences with the big states (California, New York, Michigan, etc.). Anyway, this means the Dems would be spotting the Pubbies a 20-24 vote advantage out of the gate.

2) 435 votes would be based upon the winner of a specific region where a Representative's seat is available. Assuming most people are party-line voters, the current House makeup gives the Pubbies a 223-212 advantage (There are two Independents whose districts would probably break down as one for the Dems and one for the GOP).

3) Okay, the District of Columbia is a 3 point play for the Dems. :)

Anyway, the Democrats would not support such a concept when they have disadvantages in both CD and state support. Besides, electoral votes by CD also leaves open the possibility of a third party candidate picking up some electoral votes, something NEITHER party wants.

[Theodore R.]

Yes, BUT, while SD may "approve" of Bush, that does not mean that SD is anywhere nearly ready to retire either Johnson or Daschle from the U.S. Senate. Similarly, while Bush may win GA in 2004 over any Democrat, that does not mean that GA will vote out Miller or Cleland. Ditto, LA with Breaux and Landrieu. Bush's popularity is separate from the Republican senatorial (mis)fortunes.