Comments

1. Scott March 18, 2009 2:49 PM
   What would have been the results in the more closely contested 2000 and 2004 elections, or 1992-1996 for that matter. Would Ross Perot have walked away with any electoral votes under his belt?
2. Cris March 18, 2009 4:55 PM
   Has anyone run a similar scenario on the 2004 and 2008 elections? With the amount of grumbling about electoral reform following those elections, I would be very interested in seeing how a different allocation of electors would have affected those years.
3. Nicholas J B Ohh March 18, 2009 8:38 PM
   1. Henry Ross Perot still would not have "walked away" with any (EC) votes, for he failed to post first not only in any state but also any district - though he did take a respectable 2nd place in ME-CD-02 plus about a dozen west of the River Mississippi in his '92 endeavour. 2. Since that state has not only a uni-cameral but also NON-PARTISAN legislature NE would not have any "Republicans" per se - or Democrats, Libertarians, or Greens - in that body.
4. Greg Giroux March 19, 2009 11:11 AM
   Cris, By my count, Bush would have defeated Kerry by 317-221 in the Electoral College under a district-based system (he actually won 286-251, with one electoral vote for John Edwards). Bush won 255 districts and 31 states, and Kerry won 180 districts and 19 states plus the District of Columbia. Of course, these 2004 and 2008 district-based scenarios re-run the results of the election as it was actually waged using the winner-take-all system that prevails in nearly every state. One wonders if and how the campaign strategies (and the result) might have been different under a district-based system. Thanks much, Greg Giroux, CQPolitics.com
5. susan March 19, 2009 12:58 PM
   Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
6. susan March 19, 2009 12:59 PM
   The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators -- 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
7. Nobama March 20, 2009 6:51 PM
   This is a dangerously stupid idea and I'm glad that NE will probably repeal this law. CD's can be gerrymandered, where as state lines obviously can not be. The worst gerrymander in the nation's history was the Martin Frost map of Texas which sent 21 Dems and 9 GOPer's to the House in 1992 when the GOP got a statewide total vote close to 60%!!!!!!!!!!
8. Glenn March 24, 2009 7:29 AM
   I support the Electoral College. Direct popular votes dont settle issues. Countries that have it in place (few do, most elect their President through Parliament or through an electoral college), still have the issue of voting fraud and candidates only campaigning in competitive districts. The only way to end polarization is to have non partisan elections. There will always be party strongholds in most districts. I think States should elect the President, which is why the College was formed. Its establishes that you need a consenses to rule. Bloombergs first election as mayor in 2001 he only one one Borough but won the election because he was able to win the one borough (Richmond County) quite handily. The Electoral college prevents the running the numbers up in order to get a loopsided victory. Im sure if we chagned the system to just popular vote, there would be so many voting purges in states it wouldnt be funny at all
9. Michael March 24, 2009 2:49 PM
   If electoral votes were assigned by congressional district, the winning candidate in the state would still have gotten the third vote, not only in the District of Columbia, but also in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Delaware