So I preordered the game, downloaded it just now, start playing and saw that Florida was listed as still having 27 Electoral Votes. What gives? Devs miss the 2010 Census? 10 States lost Electorial delegates, while 8 States gained delegates. Please change accordingly.
Custom electorals and wealth would be nice too, when I did a random game there was like over 1200 electorals out there with some states having a stupid population or wealth for the size or proximity to high value states around it
I'd still prefer the Maine/Nebraska method, but this ain't too bad an idea. I'd have to think that in order to balance out the numbers for proportionality to make sense, you'd want to look at election returns for a decent length of time, and get a feel for how the states historically have shaken out, at least as far as margin of victory goes. I don't think it matters much if elephant or donkey dominate a state, or the states tend to move around support. I guess if the states typically are decided 55/45, you wouldn't want to stretch out the numbers so far that a candidate can lose 65/35 and still pick up some numbers. But, if the loser gets to something like a 51/49 gap, you'd want the numbers only slightly favoring the winner, because the loser exceeded the numbers typically turned in by that state's losing candidate. Too me, this can work, but it isn't as simple to explain or sell to people and candidates as the Maine/Nebraska system. No real historical study, complicated formulas, or anything like that. Just simple points for results in regions.
I guess another way to explain my point, I'll just use my state - Wisconsin - as an example.
In 2012, I would expect the following results by congressional district.
1. Obama
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Obama
5. Romney
6. Romney
7. Obama
8. Romney
I'll just set aside a few facts. For one thing, CDs 7 and 8 are the most likely districts to be "toss ups." After that, maybe CDs 1 and 3. In CD2, Obama will win by a HUGE margin. Same for Romney is CDs 5 and 6. CD 4 will also be a large (but not as large as CD2) margin of victory for Obama.
In my system, I see the 10 electoral college votes breaking down to be 7 for Obama, and 3 for Romney. Obama gets 1 point for each CD he carries, and then 2 more for carrying Wisconsin's overall vote total. Romney gets 1 point for each CD he carries.
Now, if you want to do this proportionately, you'd want to look at historical data for MOV going back to, I don't know? 1980? 1960? 1940? Who knows, but you'll want to go back several elections. It would cover some wide margins, and narrow margins. You'd want to get an estimated average MOV over that yet-to-be-determined time frame. You'd want to set it so that if a losing candidate under performs historical averages for that yet to be determined time frame, he is left empty-handed, but picks up progressively closer to half if he over performs historical averages. And you likely end up with scenarios where extremely tight margins (Say, Wisconsin 2004, which was Kerry's smallest MOV by percentage - less than 1/2%) result in 5/5 splits for the state. To me, that's just too much work.
No system is perfect, and all have their advantages and flaws. Even the national popular vote - a system I would find completely unworkable and undesireable - has the advantage of simplicity. My preferred way would leave open some potential under representation the proportional system might address.
Just take into account that I am not in the US, So my views come from a European way of thinking. But your system is insanely more complicated than it needs to be.
The best way is extremely simple way, you don't need to look back at all.
Lets say a state has 10 districts (just for easy maths sake)
if obama wins 7 and romney wins 3, then obama gets 7 electoral seats and romney gets 3. then you move on to the next state. Its such a simple system, it doesnt make sense to have a 51%/49% vote split, and the 51% get all the electoral seats, its an insane version of a majority system. in the districts themselves there will be splits like that, they could get 51/49 in a district, but that is likely to balance out if its 49/51 in the next district.
you still have simple majority, or FPTP for each district, but when your adding up the entire state, it should be more proportinal, to represent what the state actually thinks, instead of 49% of the population voting democrat, and giving all its electoral seats to a republican, or visa-versa.
Our system makes it easier to make video games which should be primary purpose of the system...
Now THIS is logic that's hard to argue against.
It really isn't all that complicated at all. I guess since you're not from the United States, the EC is generally confusing, because the office isn't officially decided on Election Night, but several weeks later by nameless people.
If I separate myself from what's familiar to me, I guess it does seem silly. But, politics seems silly, and politicians are silly, so it fits.
In video game terms:
Each state is worth N points where N is based on its population. The winner of the state gets those points. You have to win over half the points to win the election.
The founding fathers foresaw the day of a video game that would make use of that and put into place this system for that day.
That does it for me.
Frogboy for President in 2012. Forget Romney. Forget Obama. Stick with the person who clearly sees THE most critical issue our day...political entertainment.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
