How would the electoral college be if the 435 representative rule never happened
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:24:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  How would the electoral college be if the 435 representative rule never happened
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: How would the electoral college be if the 435 representative rule never happened  (Read 21153 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2018, 09:05:32 PM »

Is the fourth district literally just Lincoln City?

There are a few adjacent townships to bring the population up to the quota. Otherwise it's about 98% made up of the city (pop 258,379). The rule in the 1970's act is not to chop it unless necessary for population reasons.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: May 06, 2018, 12:08:58 AM »

I bet doing a map of 137 districts for California would be a nightmare lol
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: May 06, 2018, 06:46:11 AM »

I bet doing a map of 137 districts for California would be a nightmare lol

It's not unlike doing a map for the lower house in a state legislature. CA has 78, but NY has 150 in its House of Representatives. I've worked on the real maps for IL (118) and OH (99) and they aren't that much harder than a congressional plan.

I think many people just draw subjective plans that look good and achieve reasonable equality and then 100 districts are a lot harder than 10. But if a plan is constrained by objective rules like minimizing chopped counties while getting the least inequality and reasonably low erosity, strategies that work for 10 districts will also work for 100, and then it isn't 10 times as much work. An example of this were the maps of the WI legislature (99) that jimrtex and I did separately did last year.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2018, 09:22:28 AM »

The increase in the size of the House in decades before 1920 was driven by political considerations, not merely population increase. The best approximation to the politics going forward from 1920 would be to set the total number of reps at each apportionment to the minimum number such that no state loses seats in the coming decade.

I ran an analysis to see what would have happened if this rule (actually the version where you said a state could only lose representation if it lost population, and otherwise no state that gained population could lose representation) had been in place from the founding of the country. It was interesting. I haven't really grappled with what it would have meant for the electoral college results (but I'm sure it would be like you've detailed here), but we'd have 4,473 representatives today, with no state having fewer than 8 representatives.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2018, 04:44:56 PM »

So let's bring this to the present. What if the 1929 act never happened to lock in 435 members in the House, but instead codified what had been common practice since the Civil War.

In the 2010 Census only MI lost population and loses 2 seats as NY is the last to be brought up to their status quo. AK moves up to 3 seats, leaving only VT and WY with 2, so DC continues to get 4 electors. There are now 1140 members in the House and the average district has 270 K inhabitants.



In 2012 Obama wins the EC by 780 to 464 (1 EV from NE).
In 2016 Trump wins the EC by 705 to 539 (Trump gets 3 EV from ME and loses 2 in NE).

Though the expanded EC matched the popular vote winner in 2000, it would not in 2016. The senate seats in the EC don't impact this result either. It looks like this the sort of case the EC is meant for - to work against a candidate that relies too much on a regional base, regardless of popularity.

It's very interesting to me that having Senator electors only mattered in 2 of the 5* EV/PV split elections since the Civil War: 1876 and 2000.  Then there's 1916, when the Senator electors were strangely the only thing that saved Wilson even though he had a 3% PV margin nationwide.  It's remarkable how robust Harrison and Trump's wins were even though they lost the PV.  This points to the EC and the Senate being 2 fundamentally different issues when it comes to how representative/small d democratic the government is.

*I count 1960 as a Nixon PV win and therefore an EV/PV split, but the nationwide PV was so close that it comes down to a technicality of how to allocate votes in Alabama, where the electors were individually chosen and some Dem electors opposed Kennedy.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2018, 11:03:36 PM »

*I count 1960 as a Nixon PV win and therefore an EV/PV split, but the nationwide PV was so close that it comes down to a technicality of how to allocate votes in Alabama, where the electors were individually chosen and some Dem electors opposed Kennedy.

I am glad that I am not really the only one who feels this way about Nixon and the popular vote
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2019, 03:31:39 AM »

The 1990 Census had IA, ND, WV and WY losing population. PA was just barely growing and set the apportioned size of the House at 971. Dems controlled Congress in 1991 and weren't going to consider any reduction to the apportionment since the losing states were mostly going to be ones in the northeast where they were strong. WV was the only state to lose a seat. The average district had 256 K inhabitants.



Since the smallest state still has 2 seats and 4 electors, so DC also gets 4 electors. ME now has 5 CDs, and does not split in either 1992 (sorry Perot) or 1996, but GWB gets 2 CDs in 2000. In 1991 NE passed a law to split electors like ME, but it does not come into use during the decade.

In 1992 Clinton wins the EC by 747 to 328.
In 1996 Clinton wins the EC by 769 to 306.
In 2000 Gore wins the EC by 543 to 532.

nb. The EC in this timeline is now double what it is IRL.

I know this is like months and months old (but since I started this thread I don't feel so bad about reviving it lol) anyways, I am curious to know, if you still have this info, which district Perot at least comes closest to picking up, and that if even a slight universal swing towards him in any way could tip him at least one electoral vote in this time line
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2019, 09:45:45 AM »

The 1990 Census had IA, ND, WV and WY losing population. PA was just barely growing and set the apportioned size of the House at 971. Dems controlled Congress in 1991 and weren't going to consider any reduction to the apportionment since the losing states were mostly going to be ones in the northeast where they were strong. WV was the only state to lose a seat. The average district had 256 K inhabitants.



Since the smallest state still has 2 seats and 4 electors, so DC also gets 4 electors. ME now has 5 CDs, and does not split in either 1992 (sorry Perot) or 1996, but GWB gets 2 CDs in 2000. In 1991 NE passed a law to split electors like ME, but it does not come into use during the decade.

In 1992 Clinton wins the EC by 747 to 328.
In 1996 Clinton wins the EC by 769 to 306.
In 2000 Gore wins the EC by 543 to 532.

nb. The EC in this timeline is now double what it is IRL.

I know this is like months and months old (but since I started this thread I don't feel so bad about reviving it lol) anyways, I am curious to know, if you still have this info, which district Perot at least comes closest to picking up, and that if even a slight universal swing towards him in any way could tip him at least one electoral vote in this time line

Of course the CDs would be different and smaller than IRL. So to that extent anything would be a guess. If there were any CDs in this scenario that might have gone for Perot in 1992 they would almost certainly have to include counties where Perot placed first. Finally there would have to be enough votes in those counties to out weigh counties in the CD where Perot was not first.

As an example, consider KS which had 3 counties plus a tie for Perot, all of which were in or adjacent to current CD 2. In this scenario KS has 10 CDs, so each is less than half the RL CD population. However all three of those counties were tiny and would only make up 12% of a CD, and Perot barely beat Bush in them. Adding enough counties to make a whole CD would wash out any Perot gains in those little counties.

The more obvious place to look is in ME, where Perot did best. In this scenario ME has 5 CDs and each would have 245.6K population. Perot won three counties (Piscataquis, Somerset, and Waldo) that would make up 41% of a CD with a net win of about 1600 votes over Clinton. That might not be enough unless one carefully selected adjacent towns. However, if there were a central ME CD it probably wouldn't take much of a swing to get Perot the win. And since ME does allocate EV by CD, Perot could get one.
Logged
Boss_Rahm
Rookie
**
Posts: 209


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2019, 10:42:32 PM »

Interesting alternative history of the 2000 election. I recall reading somewhere that in the range of 450-600 seats in the House, the result flips back and forth between Bush and Gore at random. Above 600 seats or so, and Gore always wins.

It's also interesting that in this scenario, New Mexico becomes the new Florida, with the election being decided there by just 366 votes.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2019, 03:11:03 PM »

Interesting alternative history of the 2000 election. I recall reading somewhere that in the range of 450-600 seats in the House, the result flips back and forth between Bush and Gore at random. Above 600 seats or so, and Gore always wins.

It's also interesting that in this scenario, New Mexico becomes the new Florida, with the election being decided there by just 366 votes.

Also interesting how under the winner take all system, Trump always wins in 2016, regardless of the popular vote defeceit. But in this timeline, where it would be the first time in 128 years, I think most people would be willing to forgive a 'error' like that in the system and just be able to admit that it happens sometimes and that as long as it doesn't keep happening, then it would be time to move on with our lives, sort of like hoe 2000 was, before 2016 came along
Logged
Boss_Rahm
Rookie
**
Posts: 209


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2019, 09:31:37 PM »

Interesting alternative history of the 2000 election. I recall reading somewhere that in the range of 450-600 seats in the House, the result flips back and forth between Bush and Gore at random. Above 600 seats or so, and Gore always wins.

It's also interesting that in this scenario, New Mexico becomes the new Florida, with the election being decided there by just 366 votes.

Also interesting how under the winner take all system, Trump always wins in 2016, regardless of the popular vote defeceit. But in this timeline, where it would be the first time in 128 years, I think most people would be willing to forgive a 'error' like that in the system and just be able to admit that it happens sometimes and that as long as it doesn't keep happening, then it would be time to move on with our lives, sort of like hoe 2000 was, before 2016 came along

It should be noted that Trump's win is not robust with respect to how state boundaries are drawn. For example, if you move the Illinois-Wisconsin border 25 miles south and give the Florida panhandle to Alabama, Clinton wins.

I wonder if it's possible to design a system that rewards not having support concentrated in a few places, as the founders intended, while not being so sensitive to the lines that were drawn centuries ago.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2019, 06:22:11 AM »

Interesting alternative history of the 2000 election. I recall reading somewhere that in the range of 450-600 seats in the House, the result flips back and forth between Bush and Gore at random. Above 600 seats or so, and Gore always wins.

It's also interesting that in this scenario, New Mexico becomes the new Florida, with the election being decided there by just 366 votes.
A curiosity is that the the 2000 election was conducted using 10-years-old census data. Had it been based on data that was only a few months out of data, Bush would have won based on carrying more states regardless of the size of the House.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2019, 06:48:15 AM »

An alternative to using the popular vote, would be to apportion presidential electors on the basis of citizen voting age population.

So the 28th Amendment would provide:

(1) Electors shall be apportioned among the United States and their territories on the basis of the number of citizens 18 years old or older. There shall be at least one elector for every 50,000 such persons, and each State shall be entitled to at least one. The apportionment shall take place one year prior to each presidential election.

(2) Electors shall be chosen by popular election by those eligible to vote for the larger chamber of the legislature. Time, place, manner, of elections shall be established by each State legislature, subject to override by Congress (same rules as for the House of Representatives).

(3) Electors shall meet as a single body to choose the president and vice-president. The president-elect and vice-president elect shall require a majority of the electors elected. The electors may meet at separate physical locations if contemporaneous communication is established.

(4) The 23rd Amendment is repealed. The District of Columbia shall be treated as a territory of the United States for purposes of this article of amendment.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2019, 06:36:54 AM »

An alternative to using the popular vote, would be to apportion presidential electors on the basis of citizen voting age population.

So the 28th Amendment would provide:

(1) Electors shall be apportioned among the United States and their territories on the basis of the number of citizens 18 years old or older. There shall be at least one elector for every 50,000 such persons, and each State shall be entitled to at least one. The apportionment shall take place one year prior to each presidential election.

(2) Electors shall be chosen by popular election by those eligible to vote for the larger chamber of the legislature. Time, place, manner, of elections shall be established by each State legislature, subject to override by Congress (same rules as for the House of Representatives).

(3) Electors shall meet as a single body to choose the president and vice-president. The president-elect and vice-president elect shall require a majority of the electors elected. The electors may meet at separate physical locations if contemporaneous communication is established.

(4) The 23rd Amendment is repealed. The District of Columbia shall be treated as a territory of the United States for purposes of this article of amendment.

If there was one district for each 50K people over 18, what would the 2016 map look like in terms of just state by state quantities of vote?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2019, 07:27:32 AM »

An alternative to using the popular vote, would be to apportion presidential electors on the basis of citizen voting age population.

So the 28th Amendment would provide:

(1) Electors shall be apportioned among the United States and their territories on the basis of the number of citizens 18 years old or older. There shall be at least one elector for every 50,000 such persons, and each State shall be entitled to at least one. The apportionment shall take place one year prior to each presidential election.

(2) Electors shall be chosen by popular election by those eligible to vote for the larger chamber of the legislature. Time, place, manner, of elections shall be established by each State legislature, subject to override by Congress (same rules as for the House of Representatives).

(3) Electors shall meet as a single body to choose the president and vice-president. The president-elect and vice-president elect shall require a majority of the electors elected. The electors may meet at separate physical locations if contemporaneous communication is established.

(4) The 23rd Amendment is repealed. The District of Columbia shall be treated as a territory of the United States for purposes of this article of amendment.

If there was one district for each 50K people over 18, what would the 2016 map look like in terms of just state by state quantities of vote?

This would be the apportionment based on the 2010 ACS. Coincidentally, the total number is 4357, or almost precisely 10 times the number of representatives. California's apportionment of 460 electors would suggest that its fair share of representatives would be 46.

The ratio of CVAP/total is 69.5% for the USA, ranging from 61.6% for California to 78.5% for West Virginia.


Alabama                71
Alaska                 10
Arizona                86
Arkansas               43
California            460
Colorado               71
Connecticut            51
Delaware               13
District of Columbia    9
Florida               263
Georgia               133
Hawaii                 19
Idaho                  22
Illinois              176
Indiana                94
Iowa                   45
Kansas                 40
Kentucky               65
Louisiana              67
Maine                  21
Maryland               81
Massachusetts          93
Michigan              146
Minnesota              77
Mississippi            44
Missouri               89
Montana                15
Nebraska               26
Nevada                 35
New Hampshire          20
New Jersey            118
New Mexico             29
New York              263
North Carolina        137
North Dakota           10
Ohio                  172
Oklahoma               54
Oregon                 55
Pennsylvania          192
Rhode Island           15
South Carolina         68
South Dakota           12
Tennessee              94
Texas                 317
Utah                   35
Vermont                10
Virginia              114
Washington             95
West Virginia          29
Wisconsin              84
Wyoming                 8
Puerto Rico            55
American Samoa          1
CNMI                    1
Guam                    2
US Virgin Islands       2
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2020, 05:26:47 PM »

2020 update

there are roughly 331 million people in the United States this time

New York saw the smallest population growth, with only 0.21 percent

With that, the representative size would equal roughly 271K people per seat.

This gives us 1221 representatives for the 24 and 28 maps, and 1325 electoral votes overall

I will give the updated map in the next day or two, I'm figuring all the states out, in alphabetical order
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2020, 10:52:31 PM »

Interesting alternative history of the 2000 election. I recall reading somewhere that in the range of 450-600 seats in the House, the result flips back and forth between Bush and Gore at random. Above 600 seats or so, and Gore always wins.

It's also interesting that in this scenario, New Mexico becomes the new Florida, with the election being decided there by just 366 votes.

Also interesting how under the winner take all system, Trump always wins in 2016, regardless of the popular vote defeceit. But in this timeline, where it would be the first time in 128 years, I think most people would be willing to forgive a 'error' like that in the system and just be able to admit that it happens sometimes and that as long as it doesn't keep happening, then it would be time to move on with our lives, sort of like hoe 2000 was, before 2016 came along

It should be noted that Trump's win is not robust with respect to how state boundaries are drawn. For example, if you move the Illinois-Wisconsin border 25 miles south and give the Florida panhandle to Alabama, Clinton wins.

I wonder if it's possible to design a system that rewards not having support concentrated in a few places, as the founders intended, while not being so sensitive to the lines that were drawn centuries ago.

That wasn't the Founders' intent.  They basically had a choice of two systems in 1787 to select he executive and they didn't like either one.

The first obvious choice would have been direct national election.  Even without the complications caused by the 3/5 compromise, they didn't think a national election could work. (And it certainly could not have worked without political parties, and not only were there no national parties in 1787, the Founders in 1787 would have been appalled by the idea of national political parties.)

The second obvious choice would be to do like many States at the time did and have the legislature elect the executive. While this would be workable even without political parties, the Founders were heavily into the idea of separation of powers and thought having Congress elect the President would give Congress too much power.

So instead, they had a special purpose legislature, the Electoral College, be elected every four years, apportioned in the same way as Congress, but whose members were prohibited from being in Congress, to elect a President, or at least narrow it down to a few people for Congress to decide from.

The idea that the Electoral College exists to ensure a diversity of areas of support may have something to do with why we're still stuck with it, but it's not why the Founders created it.
Logged
President of the civil service full of trans activists
Peebs
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,926
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 13, 2020, 10:32:24 PM »

So let's bring this to the present. What if the 1929 act never happened to lock in 435 members in the House, but instead codified what had been common practice since the Civil War.

In the 2010 Census only MI lost population and loses 2 seats as NY is the last to be brought up to their status quo. AK moves up to 3 seats, leaving only VT and WY with 2, so DC continues to get 4 electors. There are now 1140 members in the House and the average district has 270 K inhabitants.



In 2012 Obama wins the EC by 780 to 464 (1 EV from NE).
In 2016 Trump wins the EC by 705 to 539 (Trump gets 3 EV from ME and loses 2 in NE).
In 2020 Biden wins the EC by 713 to 531 (Biden gets 2 EV from NE and loses 3 in ME).

Though the expanded EC matched the popular vote winner in 2000, it would not in 2016. The senate seats in the EC don't impact this result either. It looks like this the sort of case the EC is meant for - to work against a candidate that relies too much on a regional base, regardless of popularity.
Decided to assume the district breakdown as 2016 for ME/NE rather than calculate manually, but this was inevitable.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2020, 10:11:42 AM »

So let's bring this to the present. What if the 1929 act never happened to lock in 435 members in the House, but instead codified what had been common practice since the Civil War.

In the 2010 Census only MI lost population and loses 2 seats as NY is the last to be brought up to their status quo. AK moves up to 3 seats, leaving only VT and WY with 2, so DC continues to get 4 electors. There are now 1140 members in the House and the average district has 270 K inhabitants.



In 2012 Obama wins the EC by 780 to 464 (1 EV from NE).
In 2016 Trump wins the EC by 705 to 539 (Trump gets 3 EV from ME and loses 2 in NE).
In 2020 Biden wins the EC by 713 to 531 (Biden gets 2 EV from NE and loses 3 in ME).

Though the expanded EC matched the popular vote winner in 2000, it would not in 2016. The senate seats in the EC don't impact this result either. It looks like this the sort of case the EC is meant for - to work against a candidate that relies too much on a regional base, regardless of popularity.
Decided to assume the district breakdown as 2016 for ME/NE rather than calculate manually, but this was inevitable.

Thanks! I look forward to the next iteration of the map at the end of the year.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2020, 10:43:17 PM »

The larger the house the more reflective of the popular vote it is.

In theory. What you're doing is you're further negating the "plus 2" of the Senators. If you wanted to drive it even closer to the popular vote, you'd take the current Electoral College and do a "minus 2" from every state. Not a lot of people would like that. You'd see the 3 electoral vote states go from being 1.11% of a majority required to win to 0.46%.

The worst thing about the current Electoral College as far as making it less reflective of the popular vote is it's "winner take all" in 48 of the 50 states. If you win California by 1 vote or by 4 million votes, doesn't matter, you're still 20% of the way toward a win either way. If you want to closer reflect the popular vote, let's ditch winner take all.

por que no los dos
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 22, 2020, 08:39:31 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/eda49f7e-1d86-40ae-aa22-dcbb5c2a9312

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1b960697-1497-48a4-9fde-d7916832b084
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 23, 2020, 01:58:07 PM »

It's fascinating how much more robust Trump's EC win was than Bush's, despite losing the PV by a lot more than Bush did.  All other PV losers came within one state of losing the EC, save for Kennedy 1960 depending on what you believe about how to count the Alabama results.  If you believe Kennedy lost the PV (I do), then he lost it by <0.1% vs. >2% for Trump.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2020, 10:35:52 PM »
« Edited: November 29, 2020, 11:17:12 PM by Skill and Chance »

Going further back in time, it's worth noting that increasing the size of the House would eventually turn 1916 into an EV/PV split and elect Hughes over Wilson.  However, the House would have to be implausibly large to change the outcome.  Hughes won the existing House EV by 218/217 but only won 18 out of 48 states.  So just by allocating the additional seats proportionally to the original 435, Hughes would win with 11,590 EV to 11,561 EV for Wilson if the House had been 53X larger with 23,055 members but Wilson would still win if it was only 52X larger.  In practice, it would flip a bit sooner due to every state automatically getting a House seat regardless of population.  Wilson won all but one of the single CD states. 
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2020, 07:57:49 PM »
« Edited: December 11, 2020, 12:08:19 AM by morgankingsley »

271K per representative

1221 representatives

1325 electoral votes

States in alphabetical order

Alabama - 20 electoral votes
Alaska - 5 electoral votes
Arizona - 29 electoral votes
Arkansas - 13 electoral votes
California - 149 electoral votes
Colorado - 24 electoral votes
Connecticut - 15 electoral votes
Delaware - 6 electoral votes
DC - 4 electoral votes
Florida - 83 electoral votes
Georgia - 42 electoral votes
Hawaii - 7 electoral votes
Idaho - 9 electoral votes
Illinois - 49 electoral votes
Indiana - 27 electoral votes
Iowa - 14 electoral votes
Kansas - 13 electoral votes
Kentucky - 19 electoral votes
Louisiana - 19 electoral votes
Maine - 7 electoral votes
Maryland - 24 electoral votes
Massachusetts - 28 electoral votes
Michigan - 39 electoral votes
Minnesota - 23 elecotral votes
Mississippi - 13 electoral votes
Missouri  - 25 electoral votes
Montana - 6 electoral votes
Nebraska - 9 elecotral votes
Nevada - 13 electoral votes
New Hampshire - 7 electoral votes
New Jersey - 35 electoral votes
New Mexico - 9 electoral votes
New York - 74 electoral votes
North Carolina - 41 electoral votes
North Dakota - 5 electoral votes
Ohio - 45 electoral votes
Oklahoma - 17 electoral votes
Oregon - 17 electoral votes
Pennsalvania - 49 electoral votes
Rhode Island - 6 electoral votes
South Carolina - 21 electoral votes
South Dakota - 5 electoral votes
Tennesse - 27 electoral votes
Texas - 111 electoral votes
Utah - 14 electoral votes
Vermont - 4 electoral votes
Virginia - 34 electoal votes
Washington - 30 electoral votes
West Virginia - 7 electoral votes
Wisconsin - 23 electoral votes
Wyoming - 4 electoral votes

My math was 1320, not 1325, but we can find 5 more to fit here and there

Regards,
MorganKingsley
Logged
Biden his time
Abdullah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,644
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: April 22, 2021, 06:22:23 PM »
« Edited: April 23, 2021, 07:05:41 AM by Abdullah »

I agree with using the Cube Root Rule. It certainly is the best method, due to being very objective.

The Wyoming Rule could cause massive fluctuations in House size depending on what the smallest state is, and how its growing in relation with the largest state (obviously not a problem now but it could be in the future). The Cube Root Rule, though, is more stable, so I like it. 👍

For example, let's try out the 2000, 2016, and 2020 elections with the Cube Root Rule:



2000 U.S. Presidential election

NOTES:
Populations apportioned based on the 1990 U.S. Census;
CT and RI have 10 and 5 EVs respectively



Image Link

[D] Al Gore/Joe Lieberman - 367 Electoral Votes - 48.5% of the popular vote

[R] George W. Bush/Dick Cheney - 364 Electoral Votes - 47.9% of the popular vote

Beautiful!!!



2016 U.S. Presidential election

NOTES:
Populations apportioned based on the 2010 U.S. Census;
CT and RI have 10 and 4 EVs respectively



Image Link

[R] Donald Trump/Mike Pence - 443 Electoral Votes - 45.9% of the popular vote  ✅

[D] Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine - 335 Electoral Votes - 48.0% of the popular vote

Due to the winner-take-all system used in most states, Clinton still takes the L.

Also, yes, I'm ignoring Maine and Nebraska both here and in the 2020 election. Not gonna try to make guesses.



2020 U.S. Presidential election



Image Link

[D] Joe Biden/Kamala Harris - 442 Electoral Votes - 51.3% of the popular vote  ✅

[R] Donald Trump/Mike Pence - 336 Electoral Votes - 46.8% of the popular vote
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 12 queries.