2004: How would it have been if all states did it the Maine and Nebraska way?

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, region by region, here goes (share of total state EV):

North East

Connecticut: Kerry 7 (100%)
Delaware: Kerry 3 (100%)
Maine: Kerry 4 (100%)
Maryland: Kerry 8 (80%) / Bush 2 (20%)
Massachusetts: Kerry 12 (100%)
New Hampshire: Kerry 3 (75%) / Bush 1 (25%)
New Jersey: Kerry 9 (60%) / Bush 6 (40%)
New York: Kerry 22 (71%) / Bush 9 (29%)
Pennsylvania: Kerry 12 (57%) / Bush 9 (43%)
Rhode Island: Kerry 4 (100%)
Vermont: Kerry 3 (100%)
West Virginia: Bush 5 (100%)
DC: Kerry 3 (100%)

Hypothetical total: Kerry 90 (74%) / Bush 32 (26%)

Actual total : Kerry 117 (96%) / Bush 5 (4%)

North-Central/Mid-West

Illinois: Kerry 12 (57%) / Bush 9 (43%)
Indiana: Bush 9 (82%) / Kerry 2 (18%)
Iowa: Bush 5 (71%) / Kerry 2 (29%)
Kentucky: Bush 7 (88%) / Kerry 1 (12%)
Michigan: Bush 10 (59%) / Kerry 7 (41%) Note Kerry wins the state but secures fewer electoral votes
Minnesota: Kerry 5 (50%) / Bush 5 (50%) Perfect tie
Missouri: Bush 8 (73%) / Kerry 3 (27%)
Ohio: Bush 15 (75%) / Kerry 5 (25%)
Wisconsin: Kerry 6 (60%) / Bush 4 (40%)

Hypothetical total: Bush 72 (63%) / Kerry 43 (37%)

Actual total: Kerry 58 (50%) / Bush 57 (50%)

South

Alabama: Bush 8 (89%) / Kerry 1 (11%)
Arkansas: Bush 6 (100%) Ironically, the most Democratic state in the South
Florida: Bush 20 (74%) / Kerry 7 (26%)
Georgia: Bush 10 (67%) / Kerry 5 (33%) Proportionally, Kerry's best state in the South
Louisiana: Bush 8 (89%) / Kerry 1 (11%)
Mississippi: Bush 5 (83%) / Kerry 1 (17%)
North Carolina: Bush 11 (73%) / Kerry 4 (27%)
South Carolina: Bush 7 (88%) / Kerry 1 (12%)
Tennessee: Bush 9 (82%) / Kerry 2 (18%)
Texas: Bush 27 (79%) / Kerry 7 (21%)
Virginia: Bush 11 (85%) / Kerry 2 (15%)

Hypothetical total: Bush 122 (80%) / Kerry 31 (20%)

Actual total: Bush 153 (100%)

Central

Colorado: Bush 6 (67%) / Kerry 3 (33%)
Kansas: Bush 6 (100%)
Montana: Bush 3 (100%)
Nebraska: Bush 5 (100%)
New Mexico: Bush 3 (60%) / Kerry 2 (40%)
North Dakota: Bush 3 (100%)
Oklahoma: Bush 7 (100%)
South Dakota: Bush 3 (100%)
Wyoming: Bush 3 (100%)

Hypothetical total: Bush 39 (89%) / Kerry 5 (11%)

Actual total: Bush 44 (100%)

West

Alaska: Bush 3 (100%)
Arizona: Bush 8 (80%) / Kerry 2 (20%)
California: Kerry 33 (60%) / Bush 22 (40%)
Hawaii: Kerry 4 (100%)
Idaho: Bush 4 (100%)
Nevada: Bush 4 (80%) / Kerry 1 (20%)
Oregon: Kerry 5 (71%) / Bush 2 (29%)
Utah: Bush 5 (100%)
Washington: Kerry 8 (73%) / Bush 3 (27%)

Hypothetical total: Kerry 53 (51%) / Bush 51 (49%)

Actual total: Kerry 77 (74%) / Bush 27 (26%)

National

Hypothetical total: Bush 316 (59%) / Kerry 222 (41%)

Actual total: Bush 286 (53%) / Kerry 252 (47%) - ignoring MN's 'faithless' elector, that is

My advice to Democrats: Don't even go down this road!

The actual result in 2004 was clearly more proportional to national votes cast than the hypothetical result would have been

Dave

[minionofmidas]

Except, of course, that "the Maine and Nebraska way" is a wee bit more comprehensive.
Maine is redistricted by commission (although the legislature votes on the commission's plan).

As for Nebraska's redistricting laws, although it's done by the legislature, I'll just quote fairvote.org:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm just pointing out that that's how the result of the Electoral College would have been if electoral votes had been cast by congressional district + 2 for the state winner, irrespecive of how each state would go about drawing its districts

Dave

[minionofmidas]

I'm just pointing out that that's how the result of the Electoral College would have been if electoral votes had been cast by congressional district + 2 for the state winner, irrespecive of how each state would go about drawing its districts

Dave

I know. I was just raising the minor point that it's not quite *entirely* fair to call that "the Maine and Nebraska way".

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush (% of state Electoral Votes)

Deepest Blue = 100%
Dark Blue = 75% - 99%
Blue = 50% - 74%
Light Blue = <50%
Gray = 0

Kerry (% of state electoral votes)

Darkest Red = 100%
Dark Red = 75% - 99%
Red = 50% - 74%
Pink = <50%
Gray = 0

[ottermax]

All of these possible CD elections require laws to stop gerrymandering.

[Mr. Morden]

Like I said in another thread, all of these proposed changes that break up the electoral votes of states, either by PR or by congressional district, would likely have the effect of increasing the relative strength of the smaller states even more, because smaller states (on average) tend to be more homogeneous and provide bigger margins of victory to whoever wins the state.  So if you break up the electoral votes of the states, you'll likely see the bigger states giving a larger share of their EVs to the loser of their states than you see in the smaller states.  Since, at least at present, the GOP tends to do better in smaller states, these scenarios are likely to give the GOP candidate a slight bonus in the EC over what they get now.

[jimrtex]

Like I said in another thread, all of these proposed changes that break up the electoral votes of states, either by PR or by congressional district, would likely have the effect of increasing the relative strength of the smaller states even more, because smaller states (on average) tend to be more homogeneous and provide bigger margins of victory to whoever wins the state.  So if you break up the electoral votes of the states, you'll likely see the bigger states giving a larger share of their EVs to the loser of their states than you see in the smaller states.  Since, at least at present, the GOP tends to do better in smaller states, these scenarios are likely to give the GOP candidate a slight bonus in the EC over what they get now.

By quintile:

Largest: 4 Bush, 6 Kerry
Second: 6 Bush 4 Kerry
Third : 8 Bush, 3 Kerry
Fourth: 8 Bush, 2 Kerry
Fifth: 5 Bush, 5 Kerry

[Mr. Morden]

Like I said in another thread, all of these proposed changes that break up the electoral votes of states, either by PR or by congressional district, would likely have the effect of increasing the relative strength of the smaller states even more, because smaller states (on average) tend to be more homogeneous and provide bigger margins of victory to whoever wins the state.  So if you break up the electoral votes of the states, you'll likely see the bigger states giving a larger share of their EVs to the loser of their states than you see in the smaller states.  Since, at least at present, the GOP tends to do better in smaller states, these scenarios are likely to give the GOP candidate a slight bonus in the EC over what they get now.

By quintile:

Largest: 4 Bush, 6 Kerry
Second: 6 Bush 4 Kerry
Third : 8 Bush, 3 Kerry
Fourth: 8 Bush, 2 Kerry
Fifth: 5 Bush, 5 Kerry

Well, OK, if you look at it like that, then there doesn't look like much of a trend.  But Kerry got 51% of his electoral votes from just four states (CA, NY, IL, PA), while Bush only got 34% of his electoral votes from the four biggest states he won (TX, FL, OH, GA).  It seems that the Democrats are more dependent on those really big states, that would, on average, lose a larger share of their EVs to the loser of those states in a system like this.

Or look at it another way.  In both 2000 and 2004, you had two roughly 50/50 elections, where the EV count was close to being even between the two parties.  Yet the GOP won about 30 states in each election, while the Dems won about 20 states.  So it seems that, on average, Dem. states are bigger than GOP states.

[minionofmidas]

Like I said in another thread, all of these proposed changes that break up the electoral votes of states, either by PR or by congressional district, would likely have the effect of increasing the relative strength of the smaller states even more, because smaller states (on average) tend to be more homogeneous and provide bigger margins of victory to whoever wins the state.  So if you break up the electoral votes of the states, you'll likely see the bigger states giving a larger share of their EVs to the loser of their states than you see in the smaller states.  Since, at least at present, the GOP tends to do better in smaller states, these scenarios are likely to give the GOP candidate a slight bonus in the EC over what they get now.

By quintile:

Largest: 4 Bush, 6 Kerry
Second: 6 Bush 4 Kerry
Third : 8 Bush, 3 Kerry
Fourth: 8 Bush, 2 Kerry
Fifth: 5 Bush, 5 Kerry

Well, OK, if you look at it like that, then there doesn't look like much of a trend.  But Kerry got 51% of his electoral votes from just four states (CA, NY, IL, PA), while Bush only got 34% of his electoral votes from the four biggest states he won (TX, FL, OH, GA).  It seems that the Democrats are more dependent on those really big states, that would, on average, lose a larger share of their EVs to the loser of those states in a system like this.

Or look at it another way.  In both 2000 and 2004, you had two roughly 50/50 elections, where the EV count was close to being even between the two parties.  Yet the GOP won about 30 states in each election, while the Dems won about 20 states.  So it seems that, on average, Dem. states are bigger than GOP states.

Actually, the trend is clearly visible from jim's post as well, except for the Dem's comparative strength in the really wee states. 30% of states won by Kerry were among the top ten largest, 13% of Bush's states were. Also remember that the third quintile states are far closer, in absolute terms, to Wyoming than to California or even Florida.