70 ? no , but a 68 point margin is the record so it may not be impossible <| sep |> throw the sienna lightnings on top of the original offer and its a deal my friend <| sep |> Maybe he is embarrassed of his family ? Maybe his alcoholic uncle decided to come ? Or his sister just got out of prison ? Could be a hundred of things that he either didn ' t know or came up unexpected . I would wait and speak to him before you jump off the ledge there . <| sep |> Lol . Proof you won ' t be able to play your PS 4 digital games in a few years ? I can still play my PS 3 and 360 digital games from 810 years ago . You ' re just plain wrong . <| sep |> Thanks for the calculations . National proportional allocation of EV for every 422 k voters adds vote clumpiness and additional complexity to the system without adding much or any benefit over pure national PV which already automatically reapportions between censuses , for example . And it would require the same sort of constitutional changes as creating a national PV . Don ' t really see the point . Proportional allocation of EV on the state level is more pernicious because it ' s easier to implement in theory and sounds superficially reasonablea compromise . But it would cause more PVEV splits and would throw many close elections to the House , where each state gets one vote for its entire delegation . Also , if fewer than all states adopted it , it would give the party that controlled the remaining winnertakeall states an unfair advantage . The House decides any election where the EC fails to produce a majority winner , not just ties . Such a scenario is especially likely if the thirdparty vote were anything above 12 % in a close election . Winnertakeall tends to exaggerate the EV majority , but it usually picks the popular vote winner . Proportional allocation would create problems due to EV clumpiness and rounding small states with few EV can ' t easily approximate the popular vote proportion . Here are some Presidential elections that might have ended up decided in the House instead bold ones are especially likely 2016 Hillary Clinton DNY wins 2 , 012 , 331 vote 1 . 50 % plurality still growing but Donald Trump RNY likely wins Presidency by 74 EV 13 . 8 %. 2000 VicePresident Al Gore DTN wins 543 , 895 vote 0 . 50 % plurality but George W . Bush RTX wins Presidency by 5 EV . 9 %. Tipping point state , Florida , decided by just 537 votes . 009 % of votes cast in FL and SCOTUS halts statewide recount by a 54 split along partisanideological lines . Serious questions about validity of outcome . telteltel 21892 Fmr . President Cleveland comes back to defeat President Harrison , becoming first and only President to serve nonconsecutive terms . This is important because it underscores the initial EC fuckup . 1888 President Grover Cleveland DNY wins 90 , 596 vote 0 . 8 % plurality but Benjamin Harrison RIN wins Presidency by 65 EV 16 . 2 % tel 76 Samuel J . Tilden DNY wins outright 254 , 235 vote 3 . 0 % majority but Rutherford B . Hayes ROH wins Presidency by 1 EV . 3 % under a compromise that ended Reconstructionteltel 18361824 John Quincy Adams actually was elected by the House . 1796 NotesIn 2012 , we would have barely avoided this fate by anywhere from 14 EV depending on how you do the rounding . Interesting fact Republicans have never been on the losing side of an EVPV split . It ' s hard to illustrate the math without a concrete example . Suppose you have 2 Small States SS 1 and SS 2 and Big State BS . BS is worth relatively less EV than it would be based on its population , whereas SS 1 and SS 2 are worth more than their pop share . Candidate A wins BS narrowly , and Candidate B wins SS 1 and SS 2 narrowly . SS 1 and SS 2 have a small but odd number of EVs . Candidate A ' s PV lead in BS , while small in % terms , is larger in absolute terms than B ' s combined PV margins in SS 1 and SS 2 . Since you can ' t approximate PV percentages perfectly with a small number of EV , and EV are always integers , Candidate B ' s lead in SS 1 and SS 2 gets exaggerated . Even if the SS 1 and SS 2 lead is wider , this basic scenario remains plausible since BS is deprived of 4 EV of voting power . BS ' EV allocation , on the other hand , gets closer to the actual proportion since it has more EV to work with . Suppose SS has 25 EV and splits 1312 under proportional allocation . SS 1 and SS 2 each split 21 . Under winnertakeall , Candate A would win the PV and the election , 25 to 6 . Under popular vote , A also wins because she has more votes overall . But with proportional EV allocation , Candidate A wins 14 EV and the PV , but Candidate B wins 16 EV and the electiondespite losing the PV . Third parties only make it worse . Suppose that they combine for 7 % of the vote in all states . This is not enough to win EV in SS 1 or SS 2 , but it might get 2 EV in BS depending on rounding . Let ' s say they draw support equally from A and B . So you ' d end up with A 12 EV , B 11 EV C 2 EV from the election in BS , and the same 21 splits in SS 1 and SS 2 . Overall , that gives us A 14 B 15 C 2 EV . Since there ' s no majority , the Election goes to the House and B wins because each congressional delegation gets one vote , and B ' s party controls SS 1 and SS 2 , whereas A ' s party only controls BS . The best proportionality is the one person , one vote inherent in a nationallyaggregated popular vote .