\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I really don't follow politics enough to know if this has been done, but is there a study out there to show what the electoral college number would be if each states' votes were proportional to the actual votes in the state? For example, Kansas has 6 electoral votes. If Romney were to win the state 66%-33%, then he would get 4 votes while Obama gets 2. I'm just wondering if this concept has been applied to the cturrent polls. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I'm not in favor of that, but I could get behind having a state's electoral votes be decided on a district by district basis. Winner take all does not give voice to the tens of thousands who have a different view and whose voices are not heard. My 2¢. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I'm not in favor of that, but I could get behind having a state's electoral votes be decided on a district by district basis. Winner take all does not give voice to the tens of thousands who have a different view and whose voices are not heard. My 2¢. I kinda like this idea. I think it could help raise overall turnout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Just a step towards a national popular vote making the smaller states inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Just a step towards a national popular vote making the smaller states inconsequential. That's exactly why I oppose a national glom vote for Prez. I think doing it by Congresscritter district would be more fair, e.g, I live in NJ. No matter how many times I vote today, my voice and others like mine will be covered over by the blue wave. There are Republicans and republicans in this state, but the electoral votes won't show it. It would if the votes went by the congressional districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I've wondered this myself, so using the 2000 results from Wikipedia, I came up with Bush 259. Gore 257. Google spreadsheet link https://docs.google....NnF3RUs1X0VoT1E In some states, there were enough 3rd party canidates getting votes that they lost an electoral vote for either major party canidate. If you remove Nader (the most popular 3rd party that year), it ends up 266 Bush 265 Gore. If you remove all 3rd party canidates that got votes, 269 Bush 268 Gore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts