What if electoral votes were assigned to congressional districts - not states?

[abruzzi]

First, if this has been kicked around to death, I apologize.

But I have searched my mind for a way to maintain the existing electoral "balance" (or imbalance, depending on point of view) while eliminating some of the more obvious negative aspects of the electoral college.

It occurred to me that if each electoral vote were "won" or "lost" depending on the outcome of the Presidential vote IN EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, that we would reduce to near zero the chance of a minority of the popular vote electing a president.  At the same time, there would be no gross reallocation of electoral power among the states.

We would be eliminating the worst aspects of winner take all state by state allocation of electoral votes, and at the same time avoid (but not entirely eliminate) the incentive for vote fraud that would attend direct election -- indeed that exists now a la Chicago and Illinois 1960 model.

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A DATA BASE THAT TRACKS -- BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT -- THE OUTCOME OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, HOPEFULLY BACK TO DAY ONE?

[Gustaf]

Well...it would've increased Bush's majority in 2000. So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work the way one would've hoped.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well...it would've increased Bush's majority in 2000. So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work the way one would've hoped.

unless you are a Republican.

[Gustaf]

Well...it would've increased Bush's majority in 2000. So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work the way one would've hoped.

unless you are a Republican.

Lol, his point was that it would lead to higher correlation between winning the PV and the EV.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well...it would've increased Bush's majority in 2000. So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work the way one would've hoped.

unless you are a Republican.

Lol, his point was that it would lead to higher correlation between winning the PV and the EV.

I know, but if "one" is a Republican, I am sure they would be happy, lol.

[abruzzi]

Yes, aligning EV and PV is the primary -- and overriding -- objective.  

But there might be other interesting and positive effects.  For instance, it is suddenly just as important to carry Cong. Dist. #3 in Mississippi as it is to carry Cong Dist #24 in California.  Cong Districts ARE distributed on the basis of population, and theoretically should have equal values.  

It's only the winner-take-all phenomenon of the current system that demotes Cong Dist's in smaller states to the electoral equivalent of Latvia.

Oh, yeah, a detail.  The winner take all system would still control 2 votes per state, i.e., the two votes associated with Senate seats, rather than Cong Districts.

[Gustaf]

Yes, aligning EV and PV is the primary -- and overriding -- objective.  

But there might be other interesting and positive effects.  For instance, it is suddenly just as important to carry Cong. Dist. #3 in Mississippi as it is to carry Cong Dist #24 in California.  Cong Districts ARE distributed on the basis of population, and theoretically should have equal values.  

It's only the winner-take-all phenomenon of the current system that demotes Cong Dist's in smaller states to the electoral equivalent of Latvia.

Oh, yeah, a detail.  The winner take all system would still control 2 votes per state, i.e., the two votes associated with Senate seats, rather than Cong Districts.

Yeah, well that would've increased Bush majority in 2000, so it wouldn't realign PV with EV, I'm afraid.

[abruzzi]

Gustaf:  First, I couldn't care less which party "benefits" from this idea.  If it aligns PV and EV, that is enuf.  

Second, how do you know it would have helped Bush?  That's the question I'm asking.  Where is the District by District data base.  If you have it, I'll be happy to look at it.  

The point of checking out the data base is to test my assumption that the Dist by Dist system would in fact align PV and EV -- without all the political gnashing of teeth associated with trying to reallocate electoral votes from one state to the next.

So please tell us how you know what the result would have been in 2004.  I would honestly like to know.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf:  First, I couldn't care less which party "benefits" from this idea.  If it aligns PV and EV, that is enuf.  

Second, how do you know it would have helped Bush?  That's the question I'm asking.  Where is the District by District data base.  If you have it, I'll be happy to look at it.  

The point of checking out the data base is to test my assumption that the Dist by Dist system would in fact align PV and EV -- without all the political gnashing of teeth associated with trying to reallocate electoral votes from one state to the next.

So please tell us how you know what the result would have been in 2004.  I would honestly like to know.

Oh, I'm not talking about what party benefits. My point is that since Bush lost the PV in 2000 and would have increased his EV margin under this system, it would not realign them.

We have, as you suspected, discussed this before, and it was asserted then. You can check the maps here if you like, and count them manually, lol. I'm not entirely sure where to find the info, but as I recall Bush would've gotten something like 285 under this system.

[7,052,770]

Cong. Dist. #3 in Mississippi

Awesome!  that's my district

[The Dowager Mod]

you would see a bunch of gerrymandering .
like tom DeGay did in texas.

[Lunar]

[Polkergeist]

Firstly, Abruzzi welcome to the board !

Secondly, you can find a analysis of Presidential election results by downloading this report ( it is in acrobat reader format). It details all election from 1952 to 2000 if they were done by the method you were suggesting.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c20z.pdf

What would change in the CD method

1960:
Nixon: 279
Kennedy:250
Ind Dem (Byrd): 5

(No defections)

1976
Carter:269
Ford:269

As for 2000 Bush would win by a larger margin 288-250

[Gustaf]

Firstly, Abruzzi welcome to the board !

Secondly, you can find a analysis of Presidential election results by downloading this report ( it is in acrobat reader format). It details all election from 1952 to 2000 if they were done by the method you were suggesting.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c20z.pdf

What would change in the CD method

1960:
Nixon: 279
Kennedy:250
Ind Dem (Byrd): 5

(No defections)

1976
Carter:269
Ford:269

As for 2000 Bush would win by a larger margin 288-250

That's interesting...it would make things worse in all cases then.

[JohnFKennedy]

Firstly, Abruzzi welcome to the board !

Secondly, you can find a analysis of Presidential election results by downloading this report ( it is in acrobat reader format). It details all election from 1952 to 2000 if they were done by the method you were suggesting.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c20z.pdf

What would change in the CD method

1960:
Nixon: 279
Kennedy:250
Ind Dem (Byrd): 5

(No defections)

1976
Carter:269
Ford:269

As for 2000 Bush would win by a larger margin 288-250

That's interesting...it would make things worse in all cases then.

seconded lol.

[Gustaf]

Firstly, Abruzzi welcome to the board !

Secondly, you can find a analysis of Presidential election results by downloading this report ( it is in acrobat reader format). It details all election from 1952 to 2000 if they were done by the method you were suggesting.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c20z.pdf

What would change in the CD method

1960:
Nixon: 279
Kennedy:250
Ind Dem (Byrd): 5

(No defections)

1976
Carter:269
Ford:269

As for 2000 Bush would win by a larger margin 288-250

That's interesting...it would make things worse in all cases then.

seconded lol.

For the record, I didn't mean worse as in 'Republcians winning', but worse as in the EV and the PV differing more than oterwise.

[WMS]

you would see a bunch of gerrymandering .
like tom DeGay did in texas.

Yep. It would be [glow=color,glow width, #characters wide]WORSE[/glow] than that, actually, since EVERYONE would try to gerrymander every possible district in the U.S. to favor one side or the other. Can you imagine the
Texas/Pennsylvania/Georgia/Florida/Illinois/Michigan/you-name-itprocess countrywide?

I actually did a variation on this method: Proportional Electoral Vote Breakdown- per Nebraska/Maine method (Congressional Districts won by candidate + 2 Senate votes to overall winner; ties broken by candidate with highest overall percentage). In my method, whoever won a majority of the Congressional District Votes wins the two Senate Votes, and the overall % is only used to break ties. A different flavor, if you will. In 2000, it was Bush the Younger 293-Gore 245, in 1996 it was Clinton 342-Dole 196, and in 1992 it was Clinton 326-Bush the Elder 212. Interestingly, neither Nader in 2000 nor Perot in 1996 and 1992 won ANY Congressional Districts...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What this basically does is enhance the already-disproportionate power of the small states.

Right now the small states have and electoral college advantage in that the have a much high EV/population ratio than the large states (because of the 2 extra EVs each state has regardless of population).  However, the large states also have an advantage, because they can swing a large number of EVs to a candidate based on a small swing in votes.

The system you are suggesting would maintain the advantage for the small states (Wyoming would still give 3 of its EVs to the GOP, while its population merits less than 1 EV), while eliminating the advantage in the large states (a small swing of voters in Pennsylvania would only swing 4-5 EVs rather than 21 EVs).

So this system will usually work to the advantage of whoever wins most of the small states, e.g. Bush in 2000.

Also, it would make the redistricting process much more partisan and contentious than it already is.

[muon2]

The change by using CD's is due to the urban concentration of Democrats. Inner city districts easily top 80% for the Democrats, which is rare for the Republicans.There are more overwhelmingly Democrat CD's in the big cities, and this tips the balance of the nation to the Republicans.

With the city CD's pulling Democrats there are more total CD's with a modest Republican edge. Furthermore, rural Republican CD's dominate the smaller states adding to the Republican advantage in the at large EV's.  When the states go winner takes all, the urban CD's swing the rural parts of their state to that state's EV winner. This cancels the Republican advantage in CD's to some extent.