Bush: 35.87% x 8 = 2.87
Perot: 23.32% x 8 = 1.87
Since electors are people, we probably have to round off to 3 for Clinton, 3 for Bush, and 2 for Perot. It's not exact, but certainly more accurate than Clinton takes all. Maybe we could even keep the fractions?
How about 1980 in Mass, rounding off:
Reagan: 41.90% x 14 = 5.866 = 6Carter: 41.75% x 14 = 5.845 = 6
John Anderson: 15.15% x 14 = 2.121 = 2
Florida 2000 rounding off:
Bush: 48.847% x 25 = 12.21 = 12 + 1 = 13Gore: 48.838% x 25 = 12.21 = 12
Nader: 1.635% x 25 = .41 =0
Others: .68% x 25 = .17 = 0
Gore wins the Presidency. Popular vote and electoral college match.
Let's do the 2016 election
Electoral College:
Trump: 306, H Clinton: 232, others 7 = 538 total
Popular vote:
Trump: 46.09%, H Clinton: 48.18%, others 5.73%
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Results_by_state
Electoral college proportional result:
(You can do the math
or take my word for it. Don't want to
bore you with the details)
Electoral votes:
Trump: 247, H. Clinton: 252.5, others: 38.5 = 538 total
Trump: 45.9%, H. Clinton: 46.94%, others 7.16%
Clinton wins, Popular vote and electoral college match.
Giving small states 2 extra electoral votes is a good idea; Prevents the big states and big cities from dominating, and contributes to federal decentralization. Allocating electoral votes by percentage solves the problem of electoral vote outcome not matching popular vote outcome. Plurality takes all is a really dumb idea, but can Americans do fractions?
I totally forgot to mention that both Republican and Democratic Presidential primary elections use proportional representation to select delegates. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Delegate_breakdownand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
So now we know that Americans can do fractions. But will they?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
