11-07-2012, 11:13 PM
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NOT Columbia, MO 65201
Casino cash: $30294
Originally Posted by petegz28
True and not true. While the heavily populated areas would rightfully be granted more EC votes, they could easily be outnumbered by the collective of smaller EC vote areas in the totality of the race.
AND, one does not negate the other per say in the manner which you present it. Quite the contrary. Just using some hypo's and last night's election let's look at this.
If 40 of the 55 CA votes went to urban areas, Obama probably loses 15 points off his total, hypo speaking. Romney by the same token picks up 15.
Florida let's say of the 29 votes, 18 go to urnab areas. Again, hypo speaking, Obama loses 11 votes, Romney picks up 11.
Between those 2 states alone that's a 26 point swing while still granting urban areas over 1/2 the total EC votes of the state.
what it does in theory is grants the dominant vote to the more populated areas while still giving the outliers a say in the election overall.
Look at Ohio. 18 votes. Give 12 to Urbans and 6 to the rest. Most likely costs Obama another 6 EC votes.
Just givent he hypos with just those 3 states, Obama is suddenly down 32 EC votes.
You add states like PA, NY and TX in that mix and we have a totally different outcome though Obama may still win. Most likely though givent he election map he wouldn't have.
to me it's about as fair as you can get without going straight vote.
What about that would be "fair?" Outside of the state distinction, land doesn't (and shouldn't) vote.
That rabbit is crazy; I'm Brian Waters!
Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"
Kotter: "You're just gay. G-A-Y. Gay."