Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 10:42:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  If all states were to use the ME/NE system, then Obama would have won, 301-237
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: If all states were to use the ME/NE system, then Obama would have won, 301-237  (Read 7758 times)
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« on: March 23, 2009, 09:28:08 pm »
Ignore

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003078061&mp=Most_Viewed

Obtained from the March 23 2009 report of Electoral-vote.com: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Mar23-s.html

It is frequently asked, what would be the outcome of the election if all states were to allocate electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska instead of using the much more common winner takes all system. The results: Obama would still win, but it would be a much closer 301-237 instead of 365-173.

What do you think?

Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6019
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2009, 10:07:57 pm »
Ignore

I think Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2004, too.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2009, 11:30:27 pm »
Ignore

It helps to have a block-solid South.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

defe07
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 666


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2009, 07:01:59 pm »
Ignore

I'd prefer the ME/NE system but I think the idea of having Presidential Elector districts would be cool. For example, Delaware or Tennessee would allocate their EVs by counties. Thus, maybe an independent like Perot could stand a better chance.
Logged

A proud Floridian moderate libertarian that believes in small government.
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31326
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2009, 03:30:19 pm »
Ignore

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.
Logged


Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6019
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2009, 06:24:40 pm »
Ignore

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

I agree. I think gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be addressed first, or simultaneously to reforming to the ME/NE method. If a state reformed to the ME/NE method first, it would create even less incentive to reform its redistricting procedure to remove the gerrymander.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8865
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2009, 06:54:35 pm »
Ignore

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG
Logged
Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19573


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2009, 09:06:10 pm »
Ignore

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

Yeah. He definitely did in a lot of areas. He was the strongest candidate we could field, after all.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2010, 07:54:42 pm »
Ignore

And Bush would have won by larger margins in both 2000 and 2004.
Logged

segwaystyle2012
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1384


Political Matrix
E: 9.68, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2010, 07:56:12 pm »
Ignore

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

Yeah. He definitely did in a lot of areas. He was the strongest candidate we could field, after all.

Not at all.
Logged

Deputy Whip of the Populares



Proud Right-Libertarian!
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2010, 10:32:42 pm »
Ignore

Its amazing how many districts that McCain led Republican Congressional candidates.

BUT MCCAIN IS TEH RINO AND MICHELLE BACHMAN IS TEH ANSWER FOR GOP!!OMG

Yeah. He definitely did in a lot of areas. He was the strongest candidate we could field, after all.

Not at all.

Who do you think was the strongest Republican candidate in 2008, then?
Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Psychic Octopus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9171
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2010, 11:26:50 pm »
Ignore

No, the strongest candidate certainly was McCain. Giuliani was hated by the base (Although McCain was disliked, he wasn't as liberal as Giuliani and was acceptable), Romney had the businessman shtick, during the worst economic catastrophe since the 1930s he would have been destroyed. Huckabee was likeable, but the polls showed him losing by double digits, only really appealed to the evangelicals, and is disliked by much of the mainstream conservatives.

Really, McCain, a war hero with tremendous experience, was the only one of the candidates who ran could win.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31130


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2010, 11:31:18 pm »
Ignore

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

Exactly. This would only make the already crappy electoral college worse.
Logged
Jensen
geraldford76
Full Member
***
Posts: 212
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2010, 11:33:13 pm »
Ignore

No, the strongest candidate certainly was McCain. Giuliani was hated by the base (Although McCain was disliked, he wasn't as liberal as Giuliani and was acceptable), Romney had the businessman shtick, during the worst economic catastrophe since the 1930s he would have been destroyed. Huckabee was likeable, but the polls showed him losing by double digits, only really appealed to the evangelicals, and is disliked by much of the mainstream conservatives.

Really, McCain, a war hero with tremendous experience, was the only one of the candidates who ran could win.

McCain couldn't even run a campaign, let alone the country. In fact, if my state wasn't a guaranteed lock for Obama, I have no idea where my vote would have gone.
Logged

Last of a dying breed
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8436


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2010, 10:31:27 pm »
Ignore

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

I agree, but this could be remedied. Congress mandated single-member districts in 1967. The original bill introduced then would have provided for non-gerrymandered redistricting as well. If Congress could pass that law today, the ME/NE system would be more attractive.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2010, 02:30:59 pm »
Ignore

Interestingly, Obama would win about 55.9% of the electoral votes, far closer to the actual results.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21935
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2010, 02:35:17 pm »
Ignore

Interestingly, Obama would win about 55.9% of the electoral votes, far closer to the actual results.

I support a direct national popular vote....but the district method is too vulnerable to gerrymandering.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2010, 02:43:39 pm »
Ignore

Interestingly, Obama would win about 55.9% of the electoral votes, far closer to the actual results.

I support a direct national popular vote....but the district method is too vulnerable to gerrymandering.

Obviously this is only a viable system if every state has a non-partisan commissions. I was just making an observation, that's all.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30159
France


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2010, 04:21:22 am »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
timmer123
Full Member
***
Posts: 140


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2010, 10:48:56 pm »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.
Logged
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30159
France


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2010, 08:17:53 am »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2010, 01:24:03 pm »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30159
France


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2010, 04:46:14 am »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38726
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2010, 04:00:11 pm »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

Incorrect. If every district was 50-50, and the election result was 55-45, then every seat would go to the winning party.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30159
France


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2010, 04:34:15 pm »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

Incorrect. If every district was 50-50, and the election result was 55-45, then every seat would go to the winning party.

True, but it would be fairer so than otherwise.
Another possibility is to draw districts which are all 90-10 for one party or the other, but I guess it's quite difficult to do (plus, it destroys competitivity and therefore favors incumbents).
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines