[Ithekro]

That would take a lot of effort in California. A whole lot of effort. At least of the Presidental scale of things. It was slightly over 60% Obama in 2012 and about 3% third party.

In 2008, it was 61% Obama and about 2% third party.

In 2004, it was 54% Kerry, and a little over 1% third party

In 2000, it was 53% Gore, almost 4% Nader, and about 1% other third parties.

In 1996, it was 51% Clinton, almost 7% Perot, and about 4% other third parties.

In 1992, (the first time a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson had won in California) it was 46% Clinton, 20% Perot, and less than 1% for other third parties.

In 1988, Dukakis won 47% of the vote to Bush's 51%. The end of the Cold War and the withdrawl of the military bases from the major population centers shifted the voting pattern following the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Most Repubilcan candidates barely get through California from the 1960s to 1980s with Reagan's second terms being the largest win at 57%. Johnson won the state in 1964 with 59%.

Side note: in 1960, Nixon beat Kennedy in California, but only by about 25,000 votes...alittle over half a percent. Though Nixon is from California.


As for partitioning the electoral votes based on the actual population's votes? I've been for that for years anyway, as it give a better slice of the nation's character. And such things are state by state anyway.

Also how is that rigging an election?