What would happen if the Electoral College was allocated on Proportional representation in each state?

While I tend to evade writing about politics I was thinking about the number of the vote and what would happen if every state were to have proportioned the Electoral college votes based on the amount of vote.
I’m say that while they would still have the same number of electoral college votes for example California with 55 etc it would be proportioned out and the final talley based on the two leading competitors.
Since we don’t have to worry in hindsight about any convoluted way of calculating based on the an initial proportion based on the last two it is easy to describe how it would work but then use the final two i.e. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the two candidates and go through every state.
In the first wave of count we merely count the votes for all candidates as normal but rather than, giving the winner all the Electoral college votes we proportion them out based on the percentage of votes.
In the second wave, when it comes to the two obvious winners we then go back and take those that are not ‘majority’ in the whole of the USA and share them, based on the percentage of seats that were allocated to the top two ‘whole country’ popular vote. So that we can proportion the remaining. This means that while a less popular vote in the state maybe gained a huge number of first wave EC proportioning they may not be the benefactor the second time when it comes to proportioning out those that didn’t win the popular vote in the USA etc.
It will then be the result of the 2nd tally or proportioning of the vote on a per state basis that goes towards the USA Electoral college vote.
Since we are using the effective result of the popular vote per state in the example since we know that in all the states the Democratic and Republican choices were the leaders ( and in most cases probably would anyway but the method I describe above is designed to take into account an anomaly that may arise where a less popular person in a single state gains a massive following contrary to the national voting.
So I quickly went through all the states and even with a fair proportional representation using individual states popular votes to proportion those electoral college votes on each state Donald Trump would still have won the Election reaching 271 of the total 538 college votes while Hillary only managed 267. Sure we was most popular if you used the vote of the total population in mass but that is unfair because it takes away the voice from the smaller states and obliterates those of minority parties totally without a chance at all of ever being represented.
The use of the popular vote is unfair as a method of gauging but the result was far more balanced and representative. The whole point of the Electoral college is not, as some have claimed, to preserve the white slave land owners choices but to make sure that the vote was balanced across the population of voters based on population and give those smaller states an equal say. The popular vote would deny a full democratic process.
Note I did the split rounding up and down and it was done just as a test to see what would happen and you can quibble over the results which is what people tend to do and all fair to them, I don’t care either way about your opinion, it is an example and not scientific, you want that then do it yourself in your time and publish your results but don’t whine about popular vote like George Takei keeps doing, it is an unfair system to vote for anyone and why it has never been adopted, proportional allocation of the Electoral college though is fair and takes into account the votes of everyone including those states where a person is not as popular in that state, why should those people be denied a voice such as in the State of California where there are huge numbers of electoral college votes available. We also should not be allowed to drown out those in other states either which the popular vote on a Countrywide level would do, nobody should be voted into Presidency based on 100,000 votes and people that don’t vote or wrote in votes should not be chastised by those that support the one that loses.

This would make far more closer calls with narrower wins for a President Elect of either side, can you imagine the recount after recount if popular vote was used.
As for the demand about “popular vote”, would the same people complaining about the popular vote complain about that popular vote if the candidate they supported won? I doubt it and the only reason they are marching and throwing a hissy fit is because of a lack of mental maturity among them.

The breakdown that I used is below

The results on a per state basis using my quick and lazy unscientific method is as follows;

KEY; T=Total (538), H=Hillary Clinton (267), D=Donald Trump (271)

  • AK T=3, H=1, D=2
  • AL T=9, H=3, D=6
  • AZ T=11, H=5, D=6
  • AR T=6, H=2, D=4
  • CA T=55, H=36, D=19
  • CO T=9, H=5, D=4
  • CT T=7, H=4, D=3
  • DE T=3, H=2, D=1
  • DC T=3, H=3, D=0
  • FL T=29, H=14, D=15
  • GA T=16, H=7, D=9
  • HI T=4, H=3, D=1
  • ID T=4, H=1,D=3
  • IL T=20, H=11, D=9
  • IN T=11, H=4, D=7
  • IA T=6, H=2, D=4
  • KS T=6, H=2, D=4
  • KY T=8, H=3, D=5
  • LA T=8, H=3, D=5
  • ME T=4, H=2, D=2
  • MD T=10, H=6, D=4
  • MA T=11, H=7, D=4
  • MI T=16, H=8, D=8
  • MN T=10, H=5, D=5
  • MS T=6, H=2, D=4
  • MT T=3, H=1, D=2
  • NE T=5, H=2, D=3
  • NV T=6, H=3, D=3
  • NH T=4, H=2, D=2
  • NJ T=14, H=8, D=6
  • NM T=5, H=3, D=2
  • NY T=29, H=18, D=11
  • NC T=15, H=7, D=8
  • ND T=3, H=1, D=2
  • OH T=18, H=8, D=10
  • OK T=7, H=2, D=5
  • OR T=7, H=4, D=3
  • PA T=20, H=10, D=10
  • RI T=4, H=2, D=2
  • SC T=9, H=4, D=5
  • SD T=3, H=1, D=2
  • TX T=38, H=17, D=21
  • UT T=6, H=2, D=4
  • VT T=3, H=2, D=1
  • VA T=13, H=7, D=3
  • WA T=12, H=7, D=5
  • WV T=5, H=1, D=4
  • WI T=10, H=5, D=5
  • WY T=3, H=1, D=2
Advertisements