[GiveMeGoth]

Excuse me, correct me if i am wrong but if every state used
this new California system to pick electors,given the
present ideological makeup of this country, a demoncratic
president would NEVER be elected.

[John Valentine]

Your analysis agrees with mine.

This result stems from the fact that Democrat strength is concentrated in big cities where they would win electors 95 to 5, and Republic strength is diffused across the country where they would win many more seats with 60-40 majorities.

Take away the ability of Democrats to take bag entire states by winning big in the metro areas wwhile losing everywhere else, and they’d never win another national election.

[Christopher Lincoln]

Some Democratic candidates would have been elected under a system of election by districts (e.g. Johnson in 1964), but it would certainly favor Republicans. One analyst noted that under such a system Nixon would have won in 1960, since he carried more states and more congressional districts than Kennedy did. I don’t know if anybody has made the same analysis for more recent elections (1976 and 1992 come to mind).

[shove_it]

“Excuse me, correct me if i am wrong but if every state used
this new California system to pick electors,given the
present ideological makeup of this country, a demoncratic
president would NEVER be elected.”

I’m with you. According to my threadbare NewsMax t-shirt proclaiming “Bush Country 2004”, the USA looks mighty red to me.

Welcome to FR by the way.

[Still Thinking]

It’s hard to say. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and the balance is certainly close. But you can’t just look at past elections and reanalyze them by county or whatever, anyway, because candidates would campaign differently if an election were held under different rules.