Why not practically double the ELECTORAL COLLEGE to 1100? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 11, 2024, 02:29:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Why not practically double the ELECTORAL COLLEGE to 1100? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why not practically double the ELECTORAL COLLEGE to 1100?  (Read 11565 times)
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:32:01 AM »
The most interesting part about this thread in my opinion is the presumed candidates Tender Branson had at the time:

Quote from: Tender Branson on September 08, 2007, 06:51:12 AM
I agree with you Bonncaruso. I already created maps for it in a seperate topic:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=60832.0

2008 Maps showing the difference between the current system and this one:

Current System:

Rudy Giuliani - 274
Hillary Clinton - 264



EC expanded to 1.000 and relative representation:

Hillary Clinton - 505
Rudy Giuliani - 495



Oh how times have changed...
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 10 queries.