Hello, I'm sure you've been asked this but here goes: what would the
2000 Presidential election look like if it were decided by districts?
In other words, not by popular vote and not by winner-take-all
electoral vote system. Is there a "red vs blue" map for this way of
tallying the 2000 Vote? Thanks!

---

Request for Question Clarification by juggler-ga on 02 Nov 2004 09:13 PST

Would this red-and-blue-by-county map meet your needs?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

"There, the district-by-district method, empirically, would not move
much toward proportionality. As Neubauer and Zeitlin report, in the 10
smallest states, "only one elector would have been allocated
differently" in 2000 had these states followed the Maine/Nebraska
model. And because small states tend to be Republican these days, the
end result of a national move toward a district-by-district approach
overall would favor Republicans and hurt Democrats.

Indeed, if every state followed the Maine/Nebraska approach in 2000,
Bush would have beaten Gore in the electoral college by a margin of
289 to 249, which much larger than the margin by which Bush actually
won. This result seems counterintuitive, given that Gore - not Bush --
won the nationwide popular vote. While the move toward more equitable
distribution within each state would seem analytically a step in the
direction of a true nationwide popular election, the counting of
results on a state-by-state basis creates numerical anomalies. "

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20041015.html