Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which would have, according to this CNN table,taken 4 electoral votes from Bush, and given them to Kerry.Colorado defeated a measure that would have allocated its electoral votes proportionally, based on the popular vote for president, and would have applied to this year's race between President Bush and John Kerry.
Kaith Rustaz said:Umm, Rich......You may wish to check those numbers.....
They seem a tad, umm, high?
(World Population is less than 10 Billion.)
:wavey:
I just did the math.... about 17,000 votes seperate Ralph Nader (Name on everything, but only 38 ballots) and Michael Badnarik (Name nowhere, but on 48 ballots).
By my count (based on Wash. Post #) 1,051,323 people voted against -both- Bush and Kerry.
Kerry - 57 Million
Bush - 54 Million
3rd - 1 Million
You know, with the right funding, and publicity, the thirds can overtake the big 2.
I'm surprised anyone would vote against doling out those electoral college votes porportionally. The winner-takes-all thing doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I just don't understand what the intention of it is. Maybe I'll have to start another thread about that....Flatlander said:Interstingly, according to CBS News, Colorado defeated a measure that would have allocated its electoral votes proportionally, based on the popular vote for president, and would have applied to this year's race between President Bush and John Kerry. Which would have, according to this CNN table,taken 4 electoral votes from Bush, and given them to Kerry.