Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chomolungma who wrote (6566)	12/25/2000 10:30:21 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I am too lazy to do the math, but I suspect that dividing up the Electors in each state in proportion to the votes each candidate receive intrastate wouldn't reach the result of having the Electors divided nationwide in proportion to the votes each candidate received nationwide. I think if each state voted proportionally, Bush would have won more Electoral votes than Gore did, despite the fact that he got fewer votes nationwide. The main reason is that Bush carried more states than Gore did, 30 to 21, so he would have more votes in each state he carried than Gore did, and not many fewer than Gore in the states he didn't carry. Maine and Nebraska divide up their Electoral votes by Congressional district, and the two extra they get for Senators go to whoever carried the state. There are more Republican Congressional districts than Democrat districts right now.