{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01609657947686117, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026827632461435278, 'mean_word_length': 5.139917695473251, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS : FIXING THE SYSTEM

In addition to the historic events surrounding the Florida vote, the outcome of the 2000 US Presidential Election has sparked a widespread discussion of the current electoral system. This discussion is not likely to fade away with a final resolution of the election outcome. The first part of this note points to some problems surrounding the voting logistics. Problems of this type are in the center of the protests and contests of the presidential election in the state of Florida: old and flawed voting machines; non-uniform procedures on the state level, let alone nationwide level; timing of the election results release; voter participation and turnout. The second part discusses some controversial properties of the US electoral system. Examples of such properties are the possibility that the candidate winning the most votes nationwide loses the election, the argument that all votes are not equal, and the possibility that the legislature (and not the votes cast in the presidential election) decides the winner. While some alternatives, like electing nationwide popular vote winner, are not likely to find sufficient support in the legislature, it is possible to fix the system without abolishing the Electoral College. The most radical proposal set in this note would have states distribute their electoral votes proportionally to the statewide popular vote with all non-votes added to the candidate who wins the statewide election.