Request to one of you math whizzes re: the EC count

Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
I've said many times that the EC votes should be apportioned according to the percentage of the individual state vote totals for a candidate. For example, if Cali went 60-30 for Kerry, their EC votes would be apportioned at 60% for Kerry and 30% for Bush. Now for my question:

If it were done that way for this cycle, what would the current EC totals be for both men?

TIA!

EDIT: And now for a secondary question: if it WERE done that way, do you feel the potential for multiple recounts of "close" states would be increased or decreased...?
 
A

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
The results would probably be a slight edge for Bush. But it would take a long time to calculate that out, and it's probably not worth the bother because an election run on that basis would have a totally different outcome. This is the same reason the "Gore really won 2000 because he got more of the popular vote" arguments are bogus.

-A0-
 
Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
A0, I disagree to some extent, which is why I'd like some sharp statistical whiz to crunch those numbers. I personally think it would solidify the current standings. I'd like to see if my beliefs have some validity, or are just "bloviating"... ;)
 
BH

BH

. . . .
One problem I see with that approach is the fractions. What would be done with partial EC votes when the popular percentages were applied? Numbers would have to be rounded at some point, which then could be claimed Rounding Error....
 
A

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
I can take a stab at it.. but the devil is in the details. For example, what rules do you want to use for rounding?

-A0-
 
A.T.Hagan

A.T.Hagan

Inactive
<i>I've said many times that the EC votes should be apportioned according to the percentage of the individual state vote totals for a candidate. For example, if Cali went 60-30 for Kerry, their EC votes would be apportioned at 60% for Kerry and 30% for Bush. Now for my question:
</i>

So, when a third party gets an elector or several what will the rules be for bartering their electors to the major parties?

Take a good look at the Israeli Knesset.

.....Alan.
 
Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
The Knesset is made up of fractional interests. The EC wouldn't do that. And how many EC votes could a 3rd party candidate be reasonably expected to get? And why shouldn't he barter them?
 
O

Onebyone

Inactive
Dennis actually some states do allow that. Last night on ABC they said Vermont I think it was divided their electoral college votes. They gave only three I believe it was to Bush at that time. So it can be done but each state has to decide to do it.
 
N

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
1) if you go to proportional allocation of EC votes you COMPLETELY DESTROY the reason FOR the EC.

The EC was SUPPOSED to ballance the big cities against the rural states.

By going proportional you disempower and disenfranchise the farm country....


2) A third party WOULD BE a factional interest Dennis... sheesh....

3) there is NO provision for either binding or loosing the EC Delegates to a particular candidate unless a specific state HAS those provisions... remember EACH STATE can determine how to select and appoint their Electors.....theey ARE real people and if the state has no provision for binding them they cast the vote of their conscience.....


c
 
A

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
"Standard math rules" doesn't really cut it. What happens if there are 3 EVs, and the votes split 49.5%, 49%, 0.5%? You have to make certain decisions on how to handle these cases. I'll make some assumptions and see what I can do.

Does anyone have a link to a single web page with all the state vote % results on it? I need more than just whole numbers, like 49% (as Yahoo has), I need like 49.24%.

-A0-
 
N

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Well, Cuy Cty (Cleveland) went 3-2 DEm, and several hundred thousand votes

Stark County (as a guess) goes 4-1 Rep at 100,00 votes TOTAL, they won't be represented in a proportional total.....

Now, if you want to apportion them based on CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS then we can talk.....due to the apportionment of Congressional Districts......and the old One man one vote doctrine of gerrymandering apportionment.
 
A

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
Dennis, whether you think the straight vote is a good idea or not..the FACT of the matter is that this experiment would NOT indicate what would happen if your idea had been the law prior to the election. Both Bush and Kerry would have run very different campaigns. They would have spent most of their time pandering to large population centers in states like NY, CA and TX, NOT running between NH, IA, NM, NV and the other small states.

Not only that, but even their POSITIONS would likely have changed.

It's apples and oranges.

-A0-
 
Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Aleph, I understand all that. My interest is purely clinical, in terms of what the EC would look like if apportioned as a percentage on a nationwide basis.
 
Tweakette

Tweakette

Irrelevant
Chuck said :
<i> 1) if you go to proportional allocation of EC votes you COMPLETELY DESTROY the reason FOR the EC.

The EC was SUPPOSED to ballance the big cities against the rural states.

By going proportional you disempower and disenfranchise the farm country....
</i>

Exactly right. Doing so just turns the EC into a pure representation of the popular vote which negates the purpose of the EC in the first place. It's a violation of the concept of the country as a republic rather than a democracy. It would be back to mob rule, but with smaller numbers .

Tweak
 
A

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
Can anyone help me with this? I don't want to have to type in each state by hand.
Does anyone have a link to a single web page with all the state vote % results on it? I need more than just whole numbers, like 49% (as Yahoo has), I need like 49.24%.
Click to expand...

-A0-
 
Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
<b>Exactly right. Doing so just turns the EC into a pure representation of the popular vote which negates the purpose of the EC in the first place. It's a violation of the concept of the country as a republic rather than a democracy. It would be back to mob rule, but with smaller numbers .</b>

I disagree completely. Our nation is a "representative Republic". We elect people whom we expect to carry out our wishes in DeeCee. We don't have a national vote on every issue (which is done in a true democracy). So by having an apportioned EC, we are, in effect, sending people to DeeCee to vote for our interests.

I don't see why some of you can't understand that...
 
delta lady

delta lady

Inactive
Doesn't seem to be one out there -AO-.

I've checked every major news site, and they ALL have the figures rounded. I'll keep looking.
 
A

Aleph Null

Membership Revoked
Sorry Dennis, I started doing this but realized it will take 2-3 hours to do it properly and I'm just not that interested in seeing the result. Maybe in a week or two. ;)

-A0-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top