Dec., 2000
Bush would still win with electoral reforms
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
No matter how you count the Electoral College, it appears George W. Bush would have won the presidency by the same narrow margin he had over Al Gore this week. Implementation of one of the most talked about reform proposals - awarding Electoral College votes to the winner of each congressional district, plus two more to the candidate who wins a state's total popular vote - would have given Bush the exact 271 to 267 margin he received under the current winner-take-all system, according to an analysis of votes by USA TODAY. It takes 270 of the 538 electoral votes to capture the White House.
Many Republicans and conservative groups have long advocated the system now used by Maine and Nebraska to offset Democratic strength in states like California, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.
For example, Gore won the popular vote in California and received all of that state's 54 electoral votes. That was despite Bush carrying most of the state's interior regions - a key point made by Republicans advocating the change.
Some Democrats support the change to help their candidates in places like Florida and Texas.
A state's electoral votes equals the number of House and Senate members it has, with no state having fewer than three electoral votes. The District of Columbia also has three electoral votes. The Constitution gives each state the power to distribute its electoral votes.
Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already award electoral votes by congressional district, with the state's winner of the popular vote getting two more votes. Maine's law went into effect for the 1972 presidential election and Nebraska's for the 1992 election. Since then, neither state has had a split awarding of electoral votes. The remaining states, and District of Columbia, award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.
USA TODAY's analysis shows Bush would have picked up chunks of electoral votes from congressional districts he carried in California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Gore carried all of those states, snaring 212 electoral votes. By comparison, Gore would have captured his different electoral votes from a scattering of states carried by Bush, including Florida. He also picked up a slew in Texas, and some in Ohio.
Most states do not tabulate presidential votes by congressional district until months after the election, if at all. However, USA TODAY compiled the electoral vote distribution through a tabulation of votes from counties and precincts, using numbers from local secretaries of state offices, local congressional offices, election bureaus and state party officials.
The winner in a handful of congressional districts remains unknown, as precinct votes in those districts have not been finalized. According to projections, Bush would remain at 271 when results are complete, though some officials think he might gain a vote or two.
Since the election, legislators in California, Indiana and Texas have introduced measures to award their electoral votes by congressional district winner.
''Here we have a political dinosaur being used to determine the most powerful position in the world,'' said Texas sate Rep. Domingo Garcia, a Democrat who sponsored the bill in Texas. ''Here there would be no question as to who the winner is.''
California state Rep. Tony Strickland, a Republican who introduced the bill there, said changing the system ''would force presidential candidates to campaign beyond large population areas.'' He said the change would give the GOP and Green Party ''an advantage they don't currently enjoy.''
Not everyone thinks a congressional district allocation is a reform worth pursing. ''Gore won the vote (in New Mexico); he should get all the marbles,'' said Rebecca Vigil-Giron, New Mexico's secretary of state.
