Question: If nation followed Nebraska/Maine rules on electoral votes, what is 2016 result?

11/14/16 | sff

[MplsSteve]

Interesting question.

For example, let’s look at Minnesota, my home state.

if we allotted EV’s on the basis of who won each Cong. Dist and then allotted 2 EV’s for the overal state winner, Trump would have won 5 EV’s and Clinton would have won 5 EV’s.

Even Romney and McCain would won won 2-3 EV’s under s system like this.

[zeugma]

Would be interesting to see if some Democrat districts voted for a RAT in the House but for TRUMP in the White House.

Agree. Would like to slice and dice those numbers

[jch10]

If they vote by Congressional Districts, Hillary would have very few EC votes. According to the color coded maps of the votes, blue areas were very small except in California. The rest of the map was red!

[WHATNEXT?]

I’ve always thought it would be good for states dominated by urban areas such as: Portland, Oregon. Most of the state is red but is ruled by the Portland metro area. If half of the vote could be split away it would be good for the conservatives in the rest of the state and would surely contribute to fairer elections....at least MY VOTE WOULD COUNT!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If you are suggesting selecting electors based on congressional district lines. Trump would still win.

This would be a fairer way of capturing the true intentions of the American electorate IF NO fraud votes are counted. That’s the key.

Also it would be problematic if they gerrymandered all the district boundaries before every presidential election. - Flavious_Maximus

I don’t care what the result is. The rest of the nation doesn’t nor should it. This is a fools errand.

The founders had it correct. Quit buying into the commies . . . slow destruction of a great nation

In reality, there is a natural pro-red gerrymander effect of the fact that Democrats concentrate strongly in cities. The effect of that is to make natural political divisions - such as a city of 300,000 people - a Congressional District which the Democrats will win very, very, easily. Guess what you do if you want to gerrymander districts so that you win the most districts and your opponent wins few districts? You draw a few districts that will vote overwhelmingly for your opponents - and divvy the rest of the electorate up among districts you expect your friends to be able to win, albeit less easily.

Famously PA has been very difficult for Republicans to win statewide; Trump barely did it but that hadn’t happened since Reagan. And yet the Republicans dominate the Commonwealth’s legislature, and its congressional delegation. There are AFAIK no districts that look like the mythological creature, the “gerrymander,” there doesn’t have to be. Just cram as many Democrats into as few districts as possible - and since the Democrats are so concentrated, it is easy and does not look at all strange.

The effect of the Nebraska Plan is to elevate any congressional district gerrymander effect into an Electoral Vote gerrymander effect.

I doubt that the Republicans would be able to con the Democrats into adopting it nationwide.

The dirty little secret, of course, is that according to the Constitution the states appoint the electors:

Article II Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

All the states conduct popular elections as their method of “appointing” their electors, but as the Nebraska and Maine examples show, there is more than one way even that can be done. I wrote my legislator a year ago, asking him to impose the restriction on candidates on the ballot in this state that they must not have violated

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

Any state has, prima facie, the right to impose such a condition on access to its ballot. A state could simply directly appoint its electors. That would be a scandal, and might result in a fight in the House of Representatives - but you can’t say it would be unconstitutional.

[SoFloFreeper]

exactly.

and, I think, it would force the candidates (or could force the candidates) into campaigning in MORE states. California might get some campaigning, then. Oregon, too.

I guess the conventional wisdom is there were no “purple” states this time around, but that won’t be true every cycle.

Expand the map.

[x]

If they vote by Congressional Districts, Hillary would have very few EC votes. According to the color coded maps of the votes, blue areas were very small except in California. The rest of the map was red!

Urban districts are tiny compared to rural ones. There are about 11 congressional districts in New York City. They won't show up on most maps.

Congressional districts are notoriously gerrymandered. To create majority Black and Latino districts, non-White voters are grouped together in the same districts.

Those districts go overwhelmingly Democrat, and the remaining, mostly White districts can be won, sometimes narrowly by Republicans.

So if every state allocated electoral votes by congressional districts, the results would be skewed to benefit the GOP.

[jch10]

Every Congressional District has one person representing it. Gerrymandering, race, etc, doesn’t matter, population does. They vote according to how their district voted...they don’t get to choose. Nothing is “skewed”.

That is how the Electoral College is supposed to work....my 9th grade Civics teacher told me so.

[x]

That is how the Electoral College is supposed to work....my 9th grade Civics teacher told me so.

Maybe you should have asked your math teacher.

[WHATNEXT?]

I’ve also thought the the U.S. should be divided into quarters. NE,SE,NW,SW and each Presidential election they would have to campaign in one of the quarters. Keeps it within a region (less costly for candidates) and all of the states will get a fairer influence on the election. Enough of Ohio,Florida, N. Carolina....etc. the states that get all the attention.

[Impy]

It may take a while, but full Pres results by Congressional district will be available, I’ll be sure to ping to you.

MN and VA are up on Dave Leip’s Atlas (memeber only feature).

In MN

Trump won big in CD’s 1 and 8 (both rat held), the US House races were near ties, CD-1 was not supposed to be close, rats stole both, really sticks in my craw.

CD 2, GOP open seat, close race, held, was narrowly for Trump

CD 6 (GOP) and CD 7 (Most moderate rat in House) went heavily Trump

CD 3 (GOP) Went Clinton by 10 points.

CD 4 and 5 are safe rat.

MN would have been tied at 5 evotes a piece.

In VA 3, 4 (court-ordered gerrymander), 8, 11 are safe rat

Shilly won CD-10 open GOP seat, held, by 10 points, hated to see that, but we did hold the seat.

So VA would be 7-6 Hillary.

Just looking at the map of WI, it’s possible Trump won one of the rat held seats, which would leave Shilly with only 2 votes from WI under this method. And I guess 1 vote in IA for Shilly.

Overall it would certainly lead to more GOP electors, by how much this time, I don’t know.

Michigan considered going to this method but the GOP wussed out (so did PA a while ago), and pending last minute theft by Clinton, they are glad they did.

[jch10]

I don’t think so. I can count to 535.

[frogjerk]

The “fix” for the electoral college for the dims is to change their platform to appeal to a majority of the states, not the people in the war-torn cities.

Dimocrats think because a lot of people watch “Modern Family” that is what Americans are like. They like to laugh at these so-called families not aspire to be a bunch of clowns.