>I favor assigning electors by proportional representation. That would mean that my favorite candidate, Ralph Nader, would have to poll one fifth-fourth of the vote (2%) in California to get one elector. In Virginia with 11 (?) electoral votes, he would have to get about 9% of the vote to get one elector. In this election Bush would have gotten about 7 electors and Gore about 4 in Virginia.
>>
>
>And the real difference between this and a popular vote is.....?????

See below.


>>It also opens up some fascinating possibilities for minority candidates and parties in a close election. Major party electors would have to negotiate with minor party electors to get to the 270 majority in the electoral college.

>No they won't. With all the money the Reform Party HAD - they had the best shot. And yet, they could not make it happen.

Look at the 1996 election when Perot got 8.40% of the vote. (He got much more in 1992 but let's use the smaller year.) That's 45 electors under proportional representation. Clinton had 49.24% of the vote or 265 electors. Dole had 40.71% or 219 electors. Nader had 2% in CA which would give him 1 elector there. That's 265 + 219 + 45 + 1 = 530. That's 8 votes short of 538 so adjust to get plausible totals:

Clinton 269
Dole 222
Perot 46
Nader 1

That leaves Clinton 2 votes short of a victory. If he allows the vote to go into the House, then Dole will win since every state gets 1 vote. He must offer concessions to Perot electors to persuade them to cast their vote for him.

You may not like this system but it is clearly different from a direct vote where the winner of the plurality (however small) is the next president.

Peter