“If the proposal is adopted, analysts suggest that a Republican presidential candidate would get a boost because Democrats can no longer count on all 55 electoral votes from California, which has voted for Democratic candidates since 1988.”
If this were adopted by all states in 1999 , I believe Gore would be president.
Here’s a better idea - split the state into Northern and Southern Californias. :)
As much as I dislike AlGore, perhaps this is the right thing to do. Why? Well, it preserves the essential feature of the electoral college, which is to deliver a result reflecting the broad consensus of the American people, in a manner which reduces or eliminates incentives for cheating. This is why popular voting is a bad thing btw - it pays to load up and cheat on that basis.
It is very hard to check this assertionn because State by state breakdowns of presidential voting are organized by county, not by congressional district. Nevertheless, I tried my best a few years ago to analyze such a scenario.
Without a doubt, Bush wins, and it isn't even close.
I believe that if this system (Nebraska/Maine) were in place nationwide, Republicans would have a lock on the White House that would last until the Democrats change their stripes.
So, you're wrong, no way Gore would have won.
Got the research?
BTW - Golf is #1.
John Valentine:
It is very hard to check this assertionn because State by state breakdowns of presidential voting are organized by county, not by congressional district. Nevertheless, I tried my best a few years ago to analyze such a scenario.
W carried more congressional districts and states than Gore did in 2000. Nobody would have bothered with all the recounts in Florida in 2000, beacause only the two statewide electoral votes would have been at stake. The DemocRATS are worried, because much of their vote is concentrated in just a few large cities, and much of the margin in the popular vote is contained in safe congressional districts in which the DemocRAT presidential candidate gets more than 80% or 90% of the vote.
Believe me every congressman knows just how many votes each presidential candidate got in his or her congressional district. My 'RAT congress critter got fewer votes than W in the 2004 election.
In 2000, House, 221 Rep to 212 Dem, 2 independent, one vote per district. States, 18 dem to 32 Rep at 2 votes per state that total's, 284 Rep, 248 Dem with 2 independent districts to go either way.
Not even close.
Presidential race by congressional districts:
2000
Bush 226
Gore 209
2004
Bush 250
Kerry 165
I'm not going to go back and figure it out, but remember that we elected a Republican House in 2000. Allocation by congressional districts would have put Bush ahead right there. Then you have the two Senatorial seats, which would be awarded statewide. I forget the state breakdown but didn't Bush carry a majority of the states as well? He certainly carried most of the counties; hence the beautiful red/blue map for that year.