Smallest possible area?

[Gustaf]

Here's another goofy thread...what's the geographically speaking smallest area that you can currently win a presidential election?

I propose this map, which was done quickly:



Reds win 270-268

[© Tweed the Younger]

Duirmuid did something like this at the old forum.

[Gustaf]

Duirmuid did something like this at the old forum.

OK...now I'm doing it at this forum!

[© Tweed the Younger]

No...what he actually did was the fewest amount of states you had to win to win the election.

[Harry]

 a candidate could win with only 15% of the land of the country if he won:
DC
RI
NJ
DE
MA
CT
MD
NY
HI
OH
PA
FL
NH
IL
CA
VA
VT
MI
wining 270-268

[Nation]

least possible states

Blue wins, 271 electoral votes.

[JohnFKennedy]

what do you mean you have made all you can??

[© Tweed the Younger]

I can't make a map (i've made all the maps i can make from this location)

What do you mean?  You can just use Leip's electoral college calculator.

[JohnFKennedy]

that is why i was confused.....

[JohnFKennedy]

Least states needed to win is 11



I know it isn't what we are talking about but...

This is a 271 - 267 win for the Democrats

The states won are:

California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas

[Gustaf]

I've done the smallest number of states before...but isn't really that interesting, since you only have to tick off the big states until you pass 270...

[JohnFKennedy]

would be kinda funny if someone pulled a win off like that, wouldn't it?

[Gustaf]

What would be funny would be someone winning with 17% of the vote in a two-man race...yes it could happen! I will post the map of that soon....

[JohnFKennedy]

is it likely though that only one person in all of California would vote

[Gustaf]

is it likely though that only one person in all of California would vote

Nobody spoke of likely...

I am talking of a situaiton with normal voter turnout.

[HockeyDude]

I hope no one ever wins like that.  I like the very idea behind the electoral college, the need for widespread support.  

[Nym90]

But the Electoral College does not require widespread support. It is possible to win with a very small margin in enough states to give you 270 electoral votes, and very little support in the entire rest of the country. A candidate can win the Electoral College with a regional campaign that focuses on only half the country, but it is nearly impossible to win the popular vote without having at least some appeal all across the nation.

[dunn]

But the Electoral College does not require widespread support. It is possible to win with a very small margin in enough states to give you 270 electoral votes, and very little support in the entire rest of the country. A candidate can win the Electoral College with a regional campaign that focuses on only half the country, but it is nearly impossible to win the popular vote without having at least some appeal all across the nation.

it does. you can win 270 ev by winning only the big 11 states but it's from CA in the west to NY in the east, FL in the south to MI in the north etc
you can't win the ev with just one area  
 
 

[Nym90]

You can't win the popular vote with just one area either. And how is it demonstrating widespread support to just narrowly win those 11, and get blown out in the other 40? As opposed to the candidate who lost the electoral but won the popular, by demonstrating FAR more appeal in the other 40 states, and only a tiny bit less in those 11 states?

[dunn]

I didn't say you can. just that you need national (ie state in diffrenet areas) to win the ev

[Nym90]

Right, but you need even more support across the whole country, ie states in different areas, to win the popular vote.

The argument that the Electoral College requires a greater geographic diversity in order to win the election is way too simplistic, since it is based on the concept that all that matters is who wins each state, not the margin. Looking at an EC map, I can see why people would think the electoral vote promotes greater support across the country, but actually the popular vote requires a greater spread of geographic diversity in a candidate's support, since it becomes almost impossible to win the popular vote if you ignore certain areas of the country. On the other hand, one can win the electoral vote by focusing on only half the country, and thus winning narrow victories in those states (even if they are all across the country, you are still only focusing on those few states) while ignoring the remainder of the nation.

[dunn]

Right, but you need even more support across the whole country, ie states in different areas, to win the popular vote.

The argument that the Electoral College requires a greater geographic diversity in order to win the election is way too simplistic, since it is based on the concept that all that matters is who wins each state, not the margin. Looking at an EC map, I can see why people would think the electoral vote promotes greater support across the country, but actually the popular vote requires a greater spread of geographic diversity in a candidate's support, since it becomes almost impossible to win the popular vote if you ignore certain areas of the country. On the other hand, one can win the electoral vote by focusing on only half the country, and thus winning narrow victories in those states (even if they are all across the country, you are still only focusing on those few states) while ignoring the remainder of the nation.

right but the main purpose of the ev (that was intreduced befor 2 parties system) was to prevent one person from doing great in one region - say the south - and thus win the presidency. toy have to win in different areas

[dunn]

I didn't say you can. just that you need national (ie state in diffrenet areas) to win the ev

Anybody who's temptedto believe this argument has any merit whatsoever please read up on 1860 now!

Lincoln Won also the far west and so called then mid-west for 17 out of 32 states with highly divded socity and 4 candidates

and anyway we were talking about these  days

[dunn]

I didn't say you can. just that you need national (ie state in diffrenet areas) to win the ev

Anybody who's temptedto believe this argument has any merit whatsoever please read up on 1860 now!

Lincoln Won also the far west and so called then mid-west for 17 out of 32 states with highly divded socity and 4 candidates

and anyway we were talking about these  days

Okay then, imagine Bush's support holding on where he won last time around but declining big time in the Gore states - going down by 10 or 20 percent that is.
Not likely, but not entirely impossible either. And Opebo would just love it.

you can win - as one had posted before (you?) - with 11 votes. All i am saying is you cant win the ev without winning in different areas of the country