If the Great Migrations never happened (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2024, 03:33:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  If the Great Migrations never happened (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If the Great Migrations never happened  (Read 1032 times)
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


« on: July 26, 2019, 07:37:45 AM »
« edited: July 26, 2019, 07:46:33 AM by Karpatsky »

I had a thread and some calculations on this here:

Very rough calculations done for fun, by 'resetting' African-American population distribution to 1860 levels. A few simplifying caveats: I didn't account for population changes changing EVs, assumed that all AAs vote Democratic, and that AAs turned out at the same level as the general population. I hope to do a more precise version sometime in the future.

In all these maps, 30% = closer than 5%, 40% = closer than 10%.

2008:



375/163

Closest states:

PA: R+0.47%
NJ: D+1.11%
MO: R+1.63%
MI: D+2.23%
MT: R+2.93%

2012:



353/200

Closest states:

DE: R+0.32%
WI: D+0.87%
CO: D+1.08%
IL: D+1.99%
TX: D+2.30%

2016:



303/235

Closest states:

MS: R+0.13%
NJ: R+0.47%
CO: D+0.63%
NH: R+0.85%
ME: D+2.19%

Here's my PVI calculation, based only on 2012 and 2016. Sorry to pagestretch, but I couldn't figure out how to do spoilers.

 Wyoming: R+26
 Oklahoma: R+24
 Utah: R+21
 West Virginia: R+21
 Idaho: R+19
 North Dakota: R+17
 Kansas: R+16
 Nebraska: R+16
 South Dakota: R+15
 Indiana: R+14
 Alaska: R+12
 Montana: R+11
 Missouri: R+10
 Arkansas: R+9
 Kentucky: R+9
 Ohio: R+9
 Tennessee: R+9
 Arizona: R+7
 Michigan: R+7
 Pennsylvania: R+6
 Alabama: R+5
 Delaware: R+4
 Iowa: R+4
 Louisiana: R+4
 Nevada: R+4
 Wisconsin: R+3
 Minnesota: R+2
 Colorado: R+1
 New Hampshire: R+1
 New Jersey: R+1
 Illinois: EVEN
 Mississippi: EVEN
 Connecticut: D+1
 Georgia: D+2
 New Mexico: D+2
 Texas: D+2
 Maine: R+3
 Maryland: D+3
 North Carolina: D+3
 New York: D+4
 Oregon: D+4
 Washington: D+5
 Rhode Island: D+6
 South Carolina: D+7
 Virginia: D+7
 Massachusetts: D+8
 California: D+9
 Florida: D+13
 Vermont: D+15
 Hawaii: D+16
 District of Columbia: D+43

Interestingly, this would almost perfectly reverse the current EC advantage - Republicans would need to win the PV by at least 2% (probably more if this alternate world has similar racial polarization as OTL) to win the EC.  One certainly imagines all the arguments about how the EC unfairly benefits big city liberals were this the case.
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2019, 10:34:35 AM »

Here's some more. I've stopped counting state EVs because I don't feel like digging up population growth statistics by race at the moment, so these are approximations based on OTL numbers. In no case do I believe they affected the outcome.

2004:



315/223

Closest states:
CT: D+0.02%
LA: D+0.1%
NH: D+0.15%
AR: D+0.48%
NC: R+1.04%

2000:


286/252

My earlier comment on Dem EC advantage was based on the 2012/2016 PVI, and evidently isn't true in general, because Gore gets cheated again in this world, by an even larger margin.

Closest states:
MD: R+0.71%
MS: D+0.78%
GA: D+0.91%
NJ: D+1.38%
NC: R+1.43%


1996:



391/147

Closest states:

MI: R+1.0%
MD: R+1.1%
PA: R+1.6%
AZ: R+1.9%
IL: D+2.6%

Fun fact: under this scenario, a 2% universal swing would give Clinton exactly 450 EVs.

1992:



401/137

Basically nothing changes here re:Perot because he was strongest in the whitest states anyhow.

Closest states:

WI: R+0.1%
NH: D+0.3%
CO: D+1.2%
PA: D+1.3%
CT: R+1.3%
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.