Allocating electors (was Re: OVC and political advocacy)

From: Steve Chessin <steve_dot_chessin_at_sun_dot_com>
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 20:03:12 CDT

>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:26:18 -0400
>From: David Mertz <voting-project@gnosis.cx>
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] OVC and political advocacy

>P.S. Here's a side elections thing I recently learned of: Colorado has
>a referendum this year to assign its Electroral College votes on a
>proportional basis, rather than winner-takes-all. I think that's
>rather a good thing (currently Nebraska and Maine do this, both rather
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>small states, population-wise). Of course, I think it's democratic in
>the abstract... but in the short-term, I'm a bit swayed by how the
>electors actually went in the last couple elections :-).

Nebraska and Maine do not allocate their electors on a proportional
basis. Rather, they allocate two electors to the plurality winner of
the statewide vote, and the rest of the electors according to the
plurality winner of each congressional district, one elector per
district. This would only be proportional by accident.

(In 2000, Maine went 49% Gore and 44% Bush, yet all of Maine's four EVs
went to Gore; Nebraska went 62% Bush and 33% Gore, yet all of
Nebraska's five EVs went to Bush. A proportional allocation would have
resulted in Maine going 2-2 Gore/Bush, and Nebraska going 3-2
Bush/Gore.)

--Steve
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CDT