States decided by a majority vs. states decided by a plurality

[Technocracy Timmy]

Trump 198 - Clinton 183

15 point electoral lead for Trump even with a 2.8 million PV loss.

[TheSaint250]

Still surprised Johnson did as well as he did in NM, even though he was from the state.

[TheSaint250]

Still surprised Johnson did as well as he did in NM, even though he was from the state.

Yeah he went from 3.6% in 2012 ---> 9.3% in 2016. Pretty impressive in the state given that he didn't seem to resonate to the same degree nationwide.

I would've thought that hitting 9.% in NM would've brought him about 5% nationally.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

[DPKdebator]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

In 2008, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina were decided by pluralities.

In 2004, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Iowa were decided by pluralities.

In 2000, Oregon (this seems really weird in 2017, huh?), New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, and Maine were decided by pluralities.

[super6646]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

In 2008, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina were decided by pluralities.

In 2004, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Iowa were decided by pluralities.

In 2000, Oregon (this seems really weird in 2017, huh?), New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, and Maine were decided by pluralities.

Clinton barely broke 50% in Oregon, so it was almost a plurality there again.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

In 2008, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina were decided by pluralities.

In 2004, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Iowa were decided by pluralities.

In 2000, Oregon (this seems really weird in 2017, huh?), New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, and Maine were decided by pluralities.

It appears as though elections without an incumbent running have far more plurality victories (2000, 2008, 2016) than those with an incumbent running (2004, 2012).

[DPKdebator]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

In 2008, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina were decided by pluralities.

In 2004, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Iowa were decided by pluralities.

In 2000, Oregon (this seems really weird in 2017, huh?), New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, and Maine were decided by pluralities.

It appears as though elections without an incumbent running have far more plurality victories (2000, 2008, 2016) than those with an incumbent running (2004, 2012).

Well, 2000 and 2016 had relatively strong third-party showings (which 100% contributes to plurality votes); a possible reason for this is that during incumbency elections, people registered with parties stick with their party's candidate and don't want to "waste their vote," while less people feel this way in open elections.

[Mr. Smith]

Just FTR, here's '76.

Carter/Mondale
Ford/Dole

Only 3 states are missing from Carter's actual win.

Now here's 1960.

Kennedy/Johnson
Nixon/Lodge


Oh and as for '88, not a single plurality win at all.

[super6646]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

Actually, Obama got just over 50% of the vote in Florida:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2012

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Also only one state in 2012 was carried by plurality: Florida.

Actually, Obama got just over 50% of the vote in Florida:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2012

Wow. And Florida was also a few thousand away from an automatic recount as well.

Atlas has him just under 50%.  It depends on how write-ins are counted, I think.