1–It’s been suggested that democracy in America would be better served if all states (and DC) adopted the presidential electoral methods used by Maine and Nebraska. Briefly, the winner in popular vote in these states gets 2 electoral votes and the winner of each congressional district gets 1 electoral vote.
Does anyone have a link giving 2000 vote breakdowns by congressional district? CNN gives votes by county but that’s no good even with a district map since counties are sometimes split.
2–If the election goes to the House (maybe not this election, but sometimes) each state will have one vote. Presumably the party with the most reps will control that state’s vote. Does anyone have information regarding the party affiliation of each state in the new congress?
Go to the US government site to get a current list of the House. Go to CNN [or other] to get which House members are running and who won.
Lumping all electorial votes together makes a state more important. It gives a candidate a viable chance to grab a chunk of votes from their opponent. Incumbents will spend money [including government money] in the state for a chance at getting all the votes.
But the reason behind the electoral college is to give the small states more power. This does nothing to that power, since very small states are only a single house district. Therefore, these states would always be all or nothing. I don’t see how this can possibly be a bad idea, and I’d love to see it mandated federally.
This won’t directly answer the OP, but I just ran across it and it looks like a nice source. Public domain, too, so I think it can be quoted at length.
“Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject.”