Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
Formula needs a little tweaking because I lost 6 electoral votes due to third party candidates and rounding errors, but it doesn't change the outcome of the election.

I just inputted my idea of proportional electoral college vote dispersion and here's what popped out: tldr, Obama still wins, but the margin reflects the popular vote more closely.

State Obama Romney Electoral Obama Romney
Alabama 38% 61% 9 3 6
Alaska 41% 55% 3 1 2
Arizona 44% 54% 11 4 6
Arkansas 37% 61% 6 2 4
California 59% 38% 55 33 21
Colorado 51% 47% 9 5 4
Connecticut 58% 40% 7 5 2
Delaware 59% 40% 3 2 1
Florida 50% 49% 29 15 14
Georgia 45% 53% 16 7 9
Hawaii 71% 28% 4 3 1
Idaho 33% 65% 4 1 3
Illinois 57% 41% 20 12 8
Indiana 44% 54% 11 4 6
Iowa 52% 47% 6 4 2
Kansas 38% 60% 6 2 4
Kentucky 38% 61% 8 3 5
Louisiana 41% 58% 8 3 5
Maine 56% 41% 4 3 1
Maryland 62% 37% 10 7 3
Massachusetts 61% 38% 11 7 4
Michigan 45% 54% 16 7 9
Minnesota 53% 45% 10 6 4
Mississippi 44% 56% 6 2 4
Missouri 44% 54% 10 4 6
Montana 42% 55% 3 1 2
Nebraska 38% 61% 5 1 4
Nevada 52% 46% 6 4 2
New Hampshire 52% 46% 4 3 1
New Jersey 58% 41% 14 9 5
New Mexico 53% 43% 5 3 2
New York 63% 36% 29 19 10
North Carolina 48% 51% 15 7 8
North Dakota 39% 59% 3 1 2
Ohio 50% 48% 18 10 8
Oklahoma 33% 67% 7 2 5
Oregon 55% 43% 7 4 2
Pennsylvania 52% 47% 20 11 9
Rhode Island 63% 36% 4 3 1
South Carolina 44% 55% 9 3 5
South Dakota 40% 58% 3 1 2
Tennessee 39% 60% 11 4 7
Texas 41% 57% 38 15 22
Utah 25% 73% 6 1 5
Vermont 67% 31% 3 3 0
Virginia 51% 48% 13 7 6
Washington 56% 42% 12 7 5
West Virginia 36% 62% 5 1 4
Wisconsin 53% 46% 10 6 4
Wyoming 28% 69% 3 0 3

            535    271    258    529

The result is Obama winning 271 to 258 with 6 votes miscalculated. Not bad.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5824

If we are going to try to implement a proportional electoral college we might as well just take the condom off and go full popular vote.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

If we are going to try to implement a proportional electoral college we might as well just take the condom off and go full popular vote.
Nah, because I do agree with the small staters that they need some protection from being totally ignored/overwhelmed. I like that they get a minimum of 3 electoral college votes in my system.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6920|Disaster Free Zone
I thought that was the point of the senate, to give smaller states an equal representation.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

I thought that was the point of the senate, to give smaller states an equal representation.
Yes, and it carries over to the electoral college. # of electoral votes = # of senators + representatives. Each state, no matter how small, has two Senators and at least one Representative. It doesn't make a big difference in the overall results, but it makes them feel better, shrug.

My system ends up being 0.2% away from the popular vote.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6953|US

DrunkFace wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Didn't we already have this conversation with feos immediately after the election?  I bet he has some friends who are GOP operatives, coming from the military industrial complex and all. 

If you're going to tinker with it at all then make it a popular vote.  Anyones vote anywhere counts.  It would completely eliminate battle ground states.  I just don't see the downside to this, as opposed to the EC system we have now.
The downside would be for people whose interests don't align with those in major population centers.  Presidential candidates would cater to large population centers almost exclusively.  Who cares about 100,000 farmers in Nebraska, if you can win 7 million in Chicago?
Sorry that's not even close to true.
Large population centres (All cities with 300,000 or more people) account for about 16% of your population, not even close to winning an election. You have far too many small cities, large towns and rural areas for them to be ignored. Each individual town of 50-100k might not get the same attention as New york, but then again, why should they?

As things are now a handful of large swing states get a majority of attention while the smaller states and the bulk of the population are ignored.
If you only include the cities proper, sure.  There are a lot of suburbs that are keep essentially the same views as the cities they lie next to.  Take a look at IL.  If you can win Cook County and the suburbs of St. Louis, you probably win the state.  That idea has been annoying the residents of "downstate" IL for quite some time.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6953|US

Macbeth wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Who cares about 100,000 farmers in Nebraska?
No one should.
Why?
I thought elected representatives were supposed to, you know, represent their constituents.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why do people seem to assume that just because a state went for a democrat that the population wants all their elected officials to be from that party (replace dem with republican--same question)?

It's a flawed assumption.
Okay

My point was, that instead of learning their lesson, the GOP is going to continue to shrink demographically until they become nothing but the party of the white south.  They've already lost the North.  They've lost the west, and have now lost Florida.  Instead of changing their attitude, the GOP instead tries to reinstate Jim Crow and divide the electoral college points at the Congressional district level.  My point was that they would eventually have to chop up all of the states they control to maintain their white-male-conservative coalition, something you or any other educated 12th grader couldve easily inferred from my post. 

Do you think I'm stupid or something?
Did you see the map showing popular vote distribution? Your geographic conclusion doesn't match the facts under your preferred popular vote method, but does under the EC. So which is it?

And my point wasn't directed at you, as I didn't quote your post, which you or any other educated 12th grader would've clearly seen, rather than inferring I was addressing a specific post.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard