2016 vs 2012 if entire EC was based on CD

[jaichind]

It was pointed out back in 2012 that if the entire EV allocation was based on CD (like in ME and NE) then Romney would have won.  It would have been

Romney (24 states + 224 CDs) = 272 EV
Obama (27 states + 212 CDs) = 266 EV

What is interesting is that in 2016 Trump had a small swing in terms of PV, huge swing in terms of EV, but would have a small swing in terms of EV under this alternative system.

Trump gained 6 states but only netted 6 CDs (he gained 21 CD from 2012 but lost 15 CD from 2012).  The result would have been under this alternative system

Trump (30 states + 230 CDs) = 290 EV
Clinton (21 states + 206 CDs) = 248 EV

Another demonstration on how optimally the Trump campaign distributed is resources to win these extra 6 states even while only netting 6 CDs.  

In fact, out of the 436 CD (DC counts as one for the purposes of this discussion) Clinton's margin versus Trump gained on Obama's margin versus Romney in at least 182 CDs (I do not have data for NC so it is possible she could have gained in 1 or 2 CDs there as well.)

[AGA]

Interesting.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

This is what happens when you pack a bunch of #NeverTrump Republicans into Congressional districts just because they vote for establishment Republican candidates.

[nclib]

This mainly has to do with Trump barely flipping WI, MI, and PA which are all Repub gerrymanders.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is what happens when you pack a bunch of #NeverTrump Republicans into Congressional districts just because they vote for establishment Republican candidates.

What you seem to be implying here is that Republican state governments should have somehow foreseen Trump when they were drawing districts in 2011-2012 and drawn said districts to cater to him, but that can't possibly be what you actually mean, can it?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

This is what happens when you pack a bunch of #NeverTrump Republicans into Congressional districts just because they vote for establishment Republican candidates.

What you seem to be implying here is that Republican state governments should have somehow foreseen Trump when they were drawing districts in 2011-2012 and drawn said districts to cater to him, but that can't possibly be what you actually mean, can it?

-Of course they should have forseen Trump. Whether they had the intellectual capacity to is another matter.

[MarkD]

It was pointed out back in 2012 that if the entire EV allocation was based on CD (like in ME and NE) then Romney would have won.  It would have been

Romney (24 states + 224 CDs) = 272 EV
Obama (27 states + 212 CDs) = 266 EV

What is interesting is that in 2016 Trump had a small swing in terms of PV, huge swing in terms of EV, but would have a small swing in terms of EV under this alternative system.

Trump gained 6 states but only netted 6 CDs (he gained 21 CD from 2012 but lost 15 CD from 2012).  The result would have been under this alternative system

Trump (30 states + 230 CDs) = 290 EV
Clinton (21 states + 206 CDs) = 248 EV

Another demonstration on how optimally the Trump campaign distributed is resources to win these extra 6 states even while only netting 6 CDs.  

In fact, out of the 436 CD (DC counts as one for the purposes of this discussion) Clinton's margin versus Trump gained on Obama's margin versus Romney in at least 182 CDs (I do not have data for NC so it is possible she could have gained in 1 or 2 CDs there as well.)

Hm, I have calculated that Romney won two more districts and would have gotten two more EVs than what you say. My analysis of 2012 said that Romney would have won electoral college by 274 to 264. I wonder why our calculations are not the same?

[jaichind]

Hm, I have calculated that Romney won two more districts and would have gotten two more EVs than what you say. My analysis of 2012 said that Romney would have won electoral college by 274 to 264. I wonder why our calculations are not the same?

I got my data from

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections

One issue with this source that could lead to problems and the discrepancy you point out is that their 2012 results for FL are based on the new CD boundaries.  It could very well be that as of 2012 with the 2012 CD boundaries you data could very well be correct.

[catscanjumphigh]

I would support this system because you'd have more competitive places to campaign which would also increase voter turn out.  For example, a competitive district in done deal states like CA and TX would once again become interesting as more people in certain districts would come to vote.  Gerrymandering is an issue, but it can only happen so much if each district means something at the presidential level.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I would support this system because you'd have more competitive places to campaign which would also increase voter turn out.  For example, a competitive district in done deal states like CA and TX would once again become interesting as more people in certain districts would come to vote.  Gerrymandering is an issue, but it can only happen so much if each district means something at the presidential level.

-It would lower voter turnout in most parts of the country, as the vast majority of CDs are uncompetitive.