Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 16, 2019, 11:16:31 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  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] Print
Author Topic: How would the electoral college be if the 435 representative rule never happened  (Read 5916 times)
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,857


View Profile 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



Don't troll and drive!
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United States


View Profile 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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,857


View Profile 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



Don't troll and drive!
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,670


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


View Profile 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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,286
View Profile 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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United States


View Profile 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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
United States


View Profile 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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,857


View Profile 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



Don't troll and drive!
Boss_Rahm
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


P
View Profile 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
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines