As promised from an earlier entry, here are the modified Electoral College totals from the Presidential elections of 1992-2004, in reverse order, had a proportionate system been in place, allotting votes based on percentage of votes received by a candidate in a state, with the first two votes going to the overall winner of that state:

2004 - Bush 287 Kerry 251 (actual 286-251, one vote cast for John Edwards)

2000 - Bush 273 Gore 260 Nader 5 (actual 271-266-0, one vote abstained)

1996 - Clinton 280 Dole 225 Perot 33 (actual 379-159-0)

1992 - Clinton 255 Bush 202 Perot 81 (actual 370-168-0)

As we can see, history would not have been changed.  Mr. Bush would have been properly placed in the White House in both 2004 and 2000, and the Florida election flap would have been avoided, since the turnover of three votes in that state (had Gore been able to find enough ballots to do so) would still have not given him enough to gain a majority in the Electoral College.  The election results in 1996 and 1992 reflect the presence of Mr. Perot's campaign, and I contend that his showing would be a strong impetus for future third-party candidacies if we had a proportionate allocation of Electoral votes.

Astute readers may note that Mr. Clinton did not have the necessary 270-vote majority in 1992 to gain automatic election through the Electoral College.  He would still have been President, though, because the House of Representatives, who decide in such cases, was Democratic-controlled in January of 1993, when the vote would have occurred.  Therefore, history would not have changed in the slightest; all persons elected by the current system would still have been emplaced under the proportionate system.  The proportionate system, however, would have avoided the controversy of Florida 2000, would give ALL voters a stronger say in a national election, and would encourage third-party candidates to challenge the status quo.  In a democracy such as ours, all of the above are good things.