Comments on: Winning an election with 22% of the popular vote http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/ Jesse Ruderman on Firefox, security, and more Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:56:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: rgw http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-945 rgw Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/test/wp15/wordpress/?p=192#comment-945 What is so wrong with that? If you carry 39 states, maybe you should win because the other canidiate obviously was appealing only to voters in the other eleven states. What is so wrong with that? If you carry 39 states, maybe you should win because the other canidiate obviously was appealing only to voters in the other eleven states.

]]> By: Jeff Walden http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-946 Jeff Walden Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/test/wp15/wordpress/?p=192#comment-946 The point of having an electoral college (in addition to not trusting the voters, which no longer holds) is to make sure the opinions of big states can't dominate over the opinions of little states in elections. In this highly improbable scenario, that's certainly what's happening. Whether the union is so partitioned that it's necessary to have this barrier in place is debatable. Given that the only two elections where the winner lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote both had highly disputed endings (and dubious, depending on which side of the aisle you're asking), I think I'd lean more towards nixing it. Note that given 50% turnout (which is roughly typical for the last few elections, I believe) in each state, that means only 11% of the country needs to support a candidate to elect him. (Of course, in this permutation of the situation the loser's supporters would have pretty much only themselves to blame.) The point of having an electoral college (in addition to not trusting the voters, which no longer holds) is to make sure the opinions of big states can’t dominate over the opinions of little states in elections. In this highly improbable scenario, that’s certainly what’s happening. Whether the union is so partitioned that it’s necessary to have this barrier in place is debatable. Given that the only two elections where the winner lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote both had highly disputed endings (and dubious, depending on which side of the aisle you’re asking), I think I’d lean more towards nixing it.

Note that given 50% turnout (which is roughly typical for the last few elections, I believe) in each state, that means only 11% of the country needs to support a candidate to elect him. (Of course, in this permutation of the situation the loser’s supporters would have pretty much only themselves to blame.)

]]> By: kwanbis http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-947 kwanbis Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/test/wp15/wordpress/?p=192#comment-947 the incredible part is that americans can still vote for bush, a lier, with ties with the Bin Laden family ... <a href="http://www.bushnews.com/bushcarlyle.htm">http://www.bushnews.com/bushcarlyle.htm</a> <a href="http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm">http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm</a> the incredible part is that americans can still vote for bush, a lier, with ties with the Bin Laden family …

http://www.bushnews.com/bushcarlyle.htm
http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm

]]> By: Grey Hodge http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-948 Grey Hodge Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/test/wp15/wordpress/?p=192#comment-948 This came about from a conversation Jesse and I had in IRC about the fact that a person can win the Presidency by winning only the 13 largest states. While I'm somewhat surprised the minimal number is that much below 25%, this is obviously a theoretical solution only. With population not evenly distributed, it's (practically speaking) easier to take most of the large states and a few small states to reach 270. John Kerry currently holds California (and the west coast) and New York (and the north east), Bush holds Texas and the plains states, and some of the Atlantic southeast. They're battling for the balance of the top tier prizes (PA, Ohio, Michigan, Florida), and the smaller states that are toss ups (upper midwest, a few southwest states) to fill out their card. This gives them specific regions to target, as opposed to a wide array of land area and population centers to cover, as they would trying to battle for the lowest 38 or states. :) This came about from a conversation Jesse and I had in IRC about the fact that a person can win the Presidency by winning only the 13 largest states. While I’m somewhat surprised the minimal number is that much below 25%, this is obviously a theoretical solution only. With population not evenly distributed, it’s (practically speaking) easier to take most of the large states and a few small states to reach 270. John Kerry currently holds California (and the west coast) and New York (and the north east), Bush holds Texas and the plains states, and some of the Atlantic southeast. They’re battling for the balance of the top tier prizes (PA, Ohio, Michigan, Florida), and the smaller states that are toss ups (upper midwest, a few southwest states) to fill out their card. This gives them specific regions to target, as opposed to a wide array of land area and population centers to cover, as they would trying to battle for the lowest 38 or states. :)

]]> By: hao2lian http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-949 hao2lian Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/test/wp15/wordpress/?p=192#comment-949 Oklahoma or some other state that starts with an "O" is also doing a Maine-like system (divvy up all the Representative (x) electoral votes between the districts that create each Representative and let the two remaining Senator votes do whatever they want [# of electoral votes = House + Senate congressmen]; Senate votes are winner-take-all so that the candidates still campaign in Maine) starting this year. Nebraska does a 100% proportional vote (if 75% vote Kerry, 75% of the electors vote Kerry) because they're weird. Mod self +1000 uber-informational. Oklahoma or some other state that starts with an “O” is also doing a Maine-like system (divvy up all the Representative (x) electoral votes between the districts that create each Representative and let the two remaining Senator votes do whatever they want [# of electoral votes = House + Senate congressmen]; Senate votes are winner-take-all so that the candidates still campaign in Maine) starting this year. Nebraska does a 100% proportional vote (if 75% vote Kerry, 75% of the electors vote Kerry) because they’re weird.

Mod self +1000 uber-informational.

]]> By: Jesse Ruderman http://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-950 Jesse Ruderman Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/test/wp15/wordpress/?p=192#comment-950 How does Nebraska's proportional vote work, especially when there are more than two candidates? How does Nebraska’s proportional vote work, especially when there are more than two candidates?

]]>