APP - New voting system

USFREEDOM911

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
With all the "discussions" occurring regarding the Electoral College and the Popular Vote, I believe I have found the solution; because I don't see our Federal elections ever being decided by the "popular vote".

What I have done is broken this last election down by using what percentage of the "popular vote" to allocate how many Electoral College votes a candidate will receive.

Below is my example and if some doesn't understand the method, please ask.

Each state has a color designation as to who won that state, this year.
After each state, is the number of Electoral votes those states have.
Under that, it shows the candidate, the percentage of votes they received, then the percentage of electoral votes that number would have given them, and finally the number of electoral votes that would have been allocated.
Once the number of electoral votes for that state have been reached, the allocation ends.

Alabama - 9
Trump 62.9 / (5.6) 6
Clinton 34.6 / (3.114) 3

Alaska - 3
Trump 52.9 / (1.6) 2
Clinton 37.7 / (1.131) 1

Arizona - 11
Trump 49.5 / (5.445) 5
Clinton 45.4 / (4.994) 5
Johnson 3.9 / (0.429) 1

Arkansas - 6
Trump 60.4 / (3.624) 4
Clinton 33.8 / (2.028) 2

California - 55
Clinton 61.6 / (33.88) 34
Trump 32.8 / (18.04) 18
Johnson 3.4 / (1.87) 2
Stein 1.8 / (0.55) 1

Colorado - 9
Clinton 47.2 / (4,248) 4
Trump 44.4 / (3.996) 4
Johnson 5.0 / (0.45) 1

Connecticut - 7
Clinton 54.5 / (3.815) 4
Trump 41.2 / (2.884) 3

Delaware - 3
Clinton 53.4 / (1.602) 2
Trump 41.9 / (1.257) 1

District of Columbia - 3
Clinton 92.8 / (2.784) 3
Trump 4.1 / (0.123) 0

Florida - 29
Trump 49.1 / (14.239) 14
Clinton 47.8 / (13.862) 14
Johnson 2.2 / (0.638) 1

Georgia - 16
Trump 51.3 / (8.208) 8
Clinton 45.6 / (7.296) 7
Johnson 3.1 / (0.496) 1

Hawaii - 4
Clinton 62.3 / (2.492) 2
Trump 30.1 / (1.204) 1
Johnson 3.7 / (0.148) 1

Idaho - 4
Trump 59.2 / (2.368) 2
Clinton 27.6 / (1.104) 1
McMullin 6.8 / (0.272) 1

Illinois - 20
Clinton 55.4 / (11.08) 11
Trump 39.4 / (7.88) 8
Johnson 3.8 / (0.76) 1

Indiana - 11
Trump 57.2 / (6.292) 6
Clinton 37.9 / (4.169) 4
Johnson 4.9 / (0.539) 1

Iowa - 6
Trump 51.8 / (3.108) 3
Clinton 42.2 / (2.532) 3

Kansas - 6
Trump 57.2 / (3.432) 3
Clinton 36.2 / (2.172) 2
Johnson 4.7 / (0.282) 1

Kentucky - 8
Trump 62.5 / (5.0) 5
Clinton 32.7 / (2.616) 3

Louisiana - 8
Trump 58.1 / (4.648) 5
Clinton 38.4 / (3.072) 3

Maine - 4
Clinton 47.9 / (1.916) 2
Trump 45.2 / (1.808) 2

Maryland - 10
Clinton 60.5 / (6.05) 6
Trump 35.3 / (3.53) 4

Massachusetts - 11
Clinton 60.8 / (6.688) 7
Trump 33.5 / (3.685) 4

Michigan - 16
Trump 47.6 / (7.616) 8
Clinton 47.3 / 7.568) 8

Minnesota - 10
Clinton 46.9 / (4.69) 5
Trump 45.4 / (4.54) 5

Mississippi - 6
Trump 58.3 / (3.498) 3
Clinton 39.7 / 2.383) 2
Johnson 1.2 / (0.072) 1

Missouri - 10
Trump 57.1 / (5.71) 6
Clinton 38.0 / (3.8) 4

Montana - 3
Trump 56.5 / (1.695) 2
Clinton 36.0 / (1.08) 1

Nebraska - 5
Trump 60.3 / (3.015) 3
Clinton 34.0 / (1.7) 2

Nevada - 6
Clinton 47.9 / (2.874) 3
Trump 45.5 / (2.73) 3

New Hampshire - 4
Clinton 47.6 / (1.904) 2
Trump 47.2 / (1.888) 2

New Jersey - 14
Clinton 55.0 / (7.70) 8
Trump 41.8 / (5.852) 6

New Mexico - 5
Clinton 48.3 / (2.415) 2
Trump 40.0 / (2.00) 2
Johnson 9.3 / (0.465) 1

New York - 29
Clinton 58.8 / (17.052) 17
Trump 37.5 / (10.875) 11
Johnson 2.3 / (0.667) 1

North Carolina - 15
Trump 50.5 / (7.575) 8
Clinton 46.7 / (7.005) 7

North Dakota - 3
Trump 64.1 / (1.923) 2
Clinton 27.8 / (0.834) 1

Ohio - 18
Trump 52.1 / (9,378) 9
Clinton 43.5 / (7.83) 8
Johnson 3.2 / (0.576) 1

Oklahoma - 7
Trump 65.3 / (4.571) 5
Clinton 28.9 / (2.023) 2

Oregon - 7
Clinton 51.7 / (3.619) 4
Trump 41.1 / (2.877) 3

Pennsylvania - 20
Trump 48.8 / (9.76) 10
Clinton 47.6 / (9.52) 10

Rhode Island - 4
Clinton 55.4 / (2.216) 2
Trump 39.8 / (1.592) 2

South Carolina - 9
Trump 54.9 / (4.941) 5
Clinton 40.8 / (3.672) 4

South Dakota - 3
Trump 61.5 / (1.845) 2
Clinton 31.7 / (0.0951) 1

Tennessee - 11
Trump 61.1 / (6.721) 7
Clinton 34.9 / (3.839) 4

Texas - 38
Trump 52.6 / (19.988) 20
Clinton 43.4 / (16.492) 16
Johnson 3.2 / (1.216) 1
Stein 0.8 / 0.304) 1

Utah - 6
Trump 45.9 / (2.754) 3
Clinton 27.8 / 1.668) 2
McMullin 21.0 / (1.26) 1

Vermont - 3
Clinton 61.1 / (1.833) 2
Trump 32.6 / (0.978) 1

Virginia - 13
Clinton 49.9 / (6.487) 6
Trump 45.0 / (5.85) 6
Johnson 3.0 / (0.39) 1

Washington - 12
Clinton 54.4 / (6.528) 7
Trump 38.2 / (4.584) 5

West Virginia - 5
Trump 68.7 / (3.435) 3
Clinton 26.5 / (1.325) 1
Johnson 3.2 / (0.16) 1

Wisconsin - 10
Trump 47.9 / (4.79) 5
Clinton 46.9 / 4.69) 5

Wyoming - 3
Trump 70.1 / (2.103) 2
Clinton 22.5 / 0.675) 1


Adding all of this up, it gives us the following totals:
Trump / 268
Clinton / 250
Third party(s) / 20


This of course would need to have the 270 number eliminated or use the congressional method that is already prescribed, when one candidate doesn't reach the 270 number.
 
With all the "discussions" occurring regarding the Electoral College and the Popular Vote, I believe I have found the solution; because I don't see our Federal elections ever being decided by the "popular vote".

What I have done is broken this last election down by using what percentage of the "popular vote" to allocate how many Electoral College votes a candidate will receive.

Below is my example and if some doesn't understand the method, please ask.

Each state has a color designation as to who won that state, this year.
After each state, is the number of Electoral votes those states have.
Under that, it shows the candidate, the percentage of votes they received, then the percentage of electoral votes that number would have given them, and finally the number of electoral votes that would have been allocated.
Once the number of electoral votes for that state have been reached, the allocation ends.

Alabama - 9
Trump 62.9 / (5.6) 6
Clinton 34.6 / (3.114) 3

Alaska - 3
Trump 52.9 / (1.6) 2
Clinton 37.7 / (1.131) 1

Arizona - 11
Trump 49.5 / (5.445) 5
Clinton 45.4 / (4.994) 5
Johnson 3.9 / (0.429) 1

Arkansas - 6
Trump 60.4 / (3.624) 4
Clinton 33.8 / (2.028) 2

California - 55
Clinton 61.6 / (33.88) 34
Trump 32.8 / (18.04) 18
Johnson 3.4 / (1.87) 2
Stein 1.8 / (0.55) 1

Colorado - 9
Clinton 47.2 / (4,248) 4
Trump 44.4 / (3.996) 4
Johnson 5.0 / (0.45) 1

Connecticut - 7
Clinton 54.5 / (3.815) 4
Trump 41.2 / (2.884) 3

Delaware - 3
Clinton 53.4 / (1.602) 2
Trump 41.9 / (1.257) 1

District of Columbia - 3
Clinton 92.8 / (2.784) 3
Trump 4.1 / (0.123) 0

Florida - 29
Trump 49.1 / (14.239) 14
Clinton 47.8 / (13.862) 14
Johnson 2.2 / (0.638) 1

Georgia - 16
Trump 51.3 / (8.208) 8
Clinton 45.6 / (7.296) 7
Johnson 3.1 / (0.496) 1

Hawaii - 4
Clinton 62.3 / (2.492) 2
Trump 30.1 / (1.204) 1
Johnson 3.7 / (0.148) 1

Idaho - 4
Trump 59.2 / (2.368) 2
Clinton 27.6 / (1.104) 1
McMullin 6.8 / (0.272) 1

Illinois - 20
Clinton 55.4 / (11.08) 11
Trump 39.4 / (7.88) 8
Johnson 3.8 / (0.76) 1

Indiana - 11
Trump 57.2 / (6.292) 6
Clinton 37.9 / (4.169) 4
Johnson 4.9 / (0.539) 1

Iowa - 6
Trump 51.8 / (3.108) 3
Clinton 42.2 / (2.532) 3

Kansas - 6
Trump 57.2 / (3.432) 3
Clinton 36.2 / (2.172) 2
Johnson 4.7 / (0.282) 1

Kentucky - 8
Trump 62.5 / (5.0) 5
Clinton 32.7 / (2.616) 3

Louisiana - 8
Trump 58.1 / (4.648) 5
Clinton 38.4 / (3.072) 3

Maine - 4
Clinton 47.9 / (1.916) 2
Trump 45.2 / (1.808) 2

Maryland - 10
Clinton 60.5 / (6.05) 6
Trump 35.3 / (3.53) 4

Massachusetts - 11
Clinton 60.8 / (6.688) 7
Trump 33.5 / (3.685) 4

Michigan - 16
Trump 47.6 / (7.616) 8
Clinton 47.3 / 7.568) 8

Minnesota - 10
Clinton 46.9 / (4.69) 5
Trump 45.4 / (4.54) 5

Mississippi - 6
Trump 58.3 / (3.498) 3
Clinton 39.7 / 2.383) 2
Johnson 1.2 / (0.072) 1

Missouri - 10
Trump 57.1 / (5.71) 6
Clinton 38.0 / (3.8) 4

Montana - 3
Trump 56.5 / (1.695) 2
Clinton 36.0 / (1.08) 1

Nebraska - 5
Trump 60.3 / (3.015) 3
Clinton 34.0 / (1.7) 2

Nevada - 6
Clinton 47.9 / (2.874) 3
Trump 45.5 / (2.73) 3

New Hampshire - 4
Clinton 47.6 / (1.904) 2
Trump 47.2 / (1.888) 2

New Jersey - 14
Clinton 55.0 / (7.70) 8
Trump 41.8 / (5.852) 6

New Mexico - 5
Clinton 48.3 / (2.415) 2
Trump 40.0 / (2.00) 2
Johnson 9.3 / (0.465) 1

New York - 29
Clinton 58.8 / (17.052) 17
Trump 37.5 / (10.875) 11
Johnson 2.3 / (0.667) 1

North Carolina - 15
Trump 50.5 / (7.575) 8
Clinton 46.7 / (7.005) 7

North Dakota - 3
Trump 64.1 / (1.923) 2
Clinton 27.8 / (0.834) 1

Ohio - 18
Trump 52.1 / (9,378) 9
Clinton 43.5 / (7.83) 8
Johnson 3.2 / (0.576) 1

Oklahoma - 7
Trump 65.3 / (4.571) 5
Clinton 28.9 / (2.023) 2

Oregon - 7
Clinton 51.7 / (3.619) 4
Trump 41.1 / (2.877) 3

Pennsylvania - 20
Trump 48.8 / (9.76) 10
Clinton 47.6 / (9.52) 10

Rhode Island - 4
Clinton 55.4 / (2.216) 2
Trump 39.8 / (1.592) 2

South Carolina - 9
Trump 54.9 / (4.941) 5
Clinton 40.8 / (3.672) 4

South Dakota - 3
Trump 61.5 / (1.845) 2
Clinton 31.7 / (0.0951) 1

Tennessee - 11
Trump 61.1 / (6.721) 7
Clinton 34.9 / (3.839) 4

Texas - 38
Trump 52.6 / (19.988) 20
Clinton 43.4 / (16.492) 16
Johnson 3.2 / (1.216) 1
Stein 0.8 / 0.304) 1

Utah - 6
Trump 45.9 / (2.754) 3
Clinton 27.8 / 1.668) 2
McMullin 21.0 / (1.26) 1

Vermont - 3
Clinton 61.1 / (1.833) 2
Trump 32.6 / (0.978) 1

Virginia - 13
Clinton 49.9 / (6.487) 6
Trump 45.0 / (5.85) 6
Johnson 3.0 / (0.39) 1

Washington - 12
Clinton 54.4 / (6.528) 7
Trump 38.2 / (4.584) 5

West Virginia - 5
Trump 68.7 / (3.435) 3
Clinton 26.5 / (1.325) 1
Johnson 3.2 / (0.16) 1

Wisconsin - 10
Trump 47.9 / (4.79) 5
Clinton 46.9 / 4.69) 5

Wyoming - 3
Trump 70.1 / (2.103) 2
Clinton 22.5 / 0.675) 1


Adding all of this up, it gives us the following totals:
Trump / 268
Clinton / 250
Third party(s) / 20


This of course would need to have the 270 number eliminated or use the congressional method that is already prescribed, when one candidate doesn't reach the 270 number.

27 views; but no responses!!
 
With all the "discussions" occurring regarding the Electoral College and the Popular Vote, I believe I have found the solution; because I don't see our Federal elections ever being decided by the "popular vote".

What I have done is broken this last election down by using what percentage of the "popular vote" to allocate how many Electoral College votes a candidate will receive.

Below is my example and if some doesn't understand the method, please ask.

Each state has a color designation as to who won that state, this year.
After each state, is the number of Electoral votes those states have.
Under that, it shows the candidate, the percentage of votes they received, then the percentage of electoral votes that number would have given them, and finally the number of electoral votes that would have been allocated.
Once the number of electoral votes for that state have been reached, the allocation ends.

Alabama - 9
Trump 62.9 / (5.6) 6
Clinton 34.6 / (3.114) 3

Alaska - 3
Trump 52.9 / (1.6) 2
Clinton 37.7 / (1.131) 1

Arizona - 11
Trump 49.5 / (5.445) 5
Clinton 45.4 / (4.994) 5
Johnson 3.9 / (0.429) 1

Arkansas - 6
Trump 60.4 / (3.624) 4
Clinton 33.8 / (2.028) 2

California - 55
Clinton 61.6 / (33.88) 34
Trump 32.8 / (18.04) 18
Johnson 3.4 / (1.87) 2
Stein 1.8 / (0.55) 1

Colorado - 9
Clinton 47.2 / (4,248) 4
Trump 44.4 / (3.996) 4
Johnson 5.0 / (0.45) 1

Connecticut - 7
Clinton 54.5 / (3.815) 4
Trump 41.2 / (2.884) 3

Delaware - 3
Clinton 53.4 / (1.602) 2
Trump 41.9 / (1.257) 1

District of Columbia - 3
Clinton 92.8 / (2.784) 3
Trump 4.1 / (0.123) 0

Florida - 29
Trump 49.1 / (14.239) 14
Clinton 47.8 / (13.862) 14
Johnson 2.2 / (0.638) 1

Georgia - 16
Trump 51.3 / (8.208) 8
Clinton 45.6 / (7.296) 7
Johnson 3.1 / (0.496) 1

Hawaii - 4
Clinton 62.3 / (2.492) 2
Trump 30.1 / (1.204) 1
Johnson 3.7 / (0.148) 1

Idaho - 4
Trump 59.2 / (2.368) 2
Clinton 27.6 / (1.104) 1
McMullin 6.8 / (0.272) 1

Illinois - 20
Clinton 55.4 / (11.08) 11
Trump 39.4 / (7.88) 8
Johnson 3.8 / (0.76) 1

Indiana - 11
Trump 57.2 / (6.292) 6
Clinton 37.9 / (4.169) 4
Johnson 4.9 / (0.539) 1

Iowa - 6
Trump 51.8 / (3.108) 3
Clinton 42.2 / (2.532) 3

Kansas - 6
Trump 57.2 / (3.432) 3
Clinton 36.2 / (2.172) 2
Johnson 4.7 / (0.282) 1

Kentucky - 8
Trump 62.5 / (5.0) 5
Clinton 32.7 / (2.616) 3

Louisiana - 8
Trump 58.1 / (4.648) 5
Clinton 38.4 / (3.072) 3

Maine - 4
Clinton 47.9 / (1.916) 2
Trump 45.2 / (1.808) 2

Maryland - 10
Clinton 60.5 / (6.05) 6
Trump 35.3 / (3.53) 4

Massachusetts - 11
Clinton 60.8 / (6.688) 7
Trump 33.5 / (3.685) 4

Michigan - 16
Trump 47.6 / (7.616) 8
Clinton 47.3 / 7.568) 8

Minnesota - 10
Clinton 46.9 / (4.69) 5
Trump 45.4 / (4.54) 5

Mississippi - 6
Trump 58.3 / (3.498) 3
Clinton 39.7 / 2.383) 2
Johnson 1.2 / (0.072) 1

Missouri - 10
Trump 57.1 / (5.71) 6
Clinton 38.0 / (3.8) 4

Montana - 3
Trump 56.5 / (1.695) 2
Clinton 36.0 / (1.08) 1

Nebraska - 5
Trump 60.3 / (3.015) 3
Clinton 34.0 / (1.7) 2

Nevada - 6
Clinton 47.9 / (2.874) 3
Trump 45.5 / (2.73) 3

New Hampshire - 4
Clinton 47.6 / (1.904) 2
Trump 47.2 / (1.888) 2

New Jersey - 14
Clinton 55.0 / (7.70) 8
Trump 41.8 / (5.852) 6

New Mexico - 5
Clinton 48.3 / (2.415) 2
Trump 40.0 / (2.00) 2
Johnson 9.3 / (0.465) 1

New York - 29
Clinton 58.8 / (17.052) 17
Trump 37.5 / (10.875) 11
Johnson 2.3 / (0.667) 1

North Carolina - 15
Trump 50.5 / (7.575) 8
Clinton 46.7 / (7.005) 7

North Dakota - 3
Trump 64.1 / (1.923) 2
Clinton 27.8 / (0.834) 1

Ohio - 18
Trump 52.1 / (9,378) 9
Clinton 43.5 / (7.83) 8
Johnson 3.2 / (0.576) 1

Oklahoma - 7
Trump 65.3 / (4.571) 5
Clinton 28.9 / (2.023) 2

Oregon - 7
Clinton 51.7 / (3.619) 4
Trump 41.1 / (2.877) 3

Pennsylvania - 20
Trump 48.8 / (9.76) 10
Clinton 47.6 / (9.52) 10

Rhode Island - 4
Clinton 55.4 / (2.216) 2
Trump 39.8 / (1.592) 2

South Carolina - 9
Trump 54.9 / (4.941) 5
Clinton 40.8 / (3.672) 4

South Dakota - 3
Trump 61.5 / (1.845) 2
Clinton 31.7 / (0.0951) 1

Tennessee - 11
Trump 61.1 / (6.721) 7
Clinton 34.9 / (3.839) 4

Texas - 38
Trump 52.6 / (19.988) 20
Clinton 43.4 / (16.492) 16
Johnson 3.2 / (1.216) 1
Stein 0.8 / 0.304) 1

Utah - 6
Trump 45.9 / (2.754) 3
Clinton 27.8 / 1.668) 2
McMullin 21.0 / (1.26) 1

Vermont - 3
Clinton 61.1 / (1.833) 2
Trump 32.6 / (0.978) 1

Virginia - 13
Clinton 49.9 / (6.487) 6
Trump 45.0 / (5.85) 6
Johnson 3.0 / (0.39) 1

Washington - 12
Clinton 54.4 / (6.528) 7
Trump 38.2 / (4.584) 5

West Virginia - 5
Trump 68.7 / (3.435) 3
Clinton 26.5 / (1.325) 1
Johnson 3.2 / (0.16) 1

Wisconsin - 10
Trump 47.9 / (4.79) 5
Clinton 46.9 / 4.69) 5

Wyoming - 3
Trump 70.1 / (2.103) 2
Clinton 22.5 / 0.675) 1


Adding all of this up, it gives us the following totals:
Trump / 268
Clinton / 250
Third party(s) / 20


This of course would need to have the 270 number eliminated or use the congressional method that is already prescribed, when one candidate doesn't reach the 270 number.

Interesting............. Did you come up w/ it??

Personally I prefer to do away w/ it=direct democracy but as you said, not happening in our life time...
 
Interesting............. Did you come up w/ it??

Personally I prefer to do away w/ it=direct democracy but as you said, not happening in our life time...

I saw someone referring to a couple of States that apportion their EC votes, by how the candidates place after the votes are counted and wondered how it would play out nationwide.

Took me a couple of hours to finish the way it looked; but yep, I own it. :D

Direct Democracy is the beginning of the road to ruin.
 
I saw someone referring to a couple of States that apportion their EC votes, by how the candidates place after the votes are counted and wondered how it would play out nationwide.

Took me a couple of hours to finish the way it looked; but yep, I own it. :D

Direct Democracy is the beginning of the road to ruin.

YES, IT WOULD MEAN NY AND CA DECIDE EVERY ELECTION. I would personally start a revolt if that ever happened.
 
Since the disagreement between the EC and the "popular vote" is continuing, I really thought that this presentation would generate a discussion.

Maybe no one really wants to "repair" what many see as a broken system or the idea just flat out scares some.

Either way; I might just decide to send this suggestion, to Washington, next year.
 
Since the disagreement between the EC and the "popular vote" is continuing, I really thought that this presentation would generate a discussion.

Maybe no one really wants to "repair" what many see as a broken system or the idea just flat out scares some.

Either way; I might just decide to send this suggestion, to Washington, next year.

There is very little interest in ditching the ec.
There may be more interest in going back to the future and limiting suffrage to those with skin in the game. Land owners is too limited as some have reason to chose not to own property. But eliminating the parasites would make sense.
 
There is very little interest in ditching the ec.
There may be more interest in going back to the future and limiting suffrage to those with skin in the game. Land owners is too limited as some have reason to chose not to own property. But eliminating the parasites would make sense.

Make it people actually paying taxes, period. After all revenue pays for all spending
 
I saw someone referring to a couple of States that apportion their EC votes, by how the candidates place after the votes are counted and wondered how it would play out nationwide.

Took me a couple of hours to finish the way it looked; but yep, I own it. :D

Direct Democracy is the beginning of the road to ruin.

Good job.... Deff some food for thought...
 
Back
Top