Voter Suppression in Texas

[bluepenquin]

Had we allocated EV proportionally in 2016 the final results would have been:

Clinton - 262
Trump - 260
Johnson - 14
Stein - 1
McMullin - 1

[bluepenquin]

Here would be the states won by Clinton and how much over Trump. Under this scenario - D.C. would have been very consequential.

California - 16
New York - 6
District of Columbia - 3
Illinois - 3
Massachusetts - 3
Hawaii - 2
Maryland - 2
New Jersey - 2
Connecticut - 1
Delaware - 1
Oregon - 1
Virginia - 1
Vermont - 1
Washington - 1

[bluepenquin]

And here the states Trump would have won and how many votes over Clinton.

Alabama - 3
Tennessee - 3
Texas - 3
West Virginia - 3
Arkansas - 2
Idaho - 2
Indiana - 2
Kansas - 2
Kentucky - 2
Louisiana - 2
Missouri - 2
Mississippi - 2
Alaska - 1
Georgia - 1
Michigan - 1
Montana - 1
North Carolina - 1
North Dakota - 1
Nebraska - 1
Ohio - 1
Oklahoma - 1
South Carolina - 1
South Dakota - 1
Utah - 1
Wyoming - 1

[bluepenquin]

And this list of states were the proportional EVs would be the same between Trump and Clinton.

Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Maine
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Wisconsin

[bluepenquin]

States where Johnson would pick up an EV. 3rd party candidates pretty much only have a chance to pick up a vote in the largest states.

California (2)
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Texas
Washington

[bluepenquin]

Stein gets her vote in California. McMullin gets his in Utah. McMullin got 21% of the vote in Utah to get his EV. Stein got 2% of the vote in California to get her EV.

Johnson got 9.34% of the vote in New Mexico and barely got the last EV over Clinton.

[mervinswerved]

Nobody is arguing for this. Unless you're doing your thing where you game it all out because it amuses you. In that case, proceed.

[donut]

I feel like you meant to post all of that... here.

[keener]

Oct 8, 2020 7:49:22 GMT -5 donut said:

I'm sure Keener is petitioning his state to remove the multiple ballot boxes in every New Jersey county since they're so unnecessary. Every single county has multiple drop-off locations, so I'm sure he's busy.

www.nj.com/politics/2020/09/heres-where-you-can-find-your-countys-secure-drop-boxes-for-mail-in-ballots.html

Oh wait -- I forgot. His schedule is booked making duplicate accounts on here and bragging about smoking weed.

No way duncabro I am heading to the polls to vote 100% live brother!  I'm gonna get home from working mids and then take a nap for a few hours and then wake up go grab me some lunch and then vote around noon.

You live in Jersey too?   You should come over my bro from Colorado just sent me some killer cannabis-infused chocolate truffles.  

[bluepenquin]

Oct 8, 2020 8:57:37 GMT -5 donut said:

I feel like you meant to post all of that... here.

Yeah - I missed the thread.  I knew it was one of these.

[bluepenquin]

Oct 8, 2020 8:53:57 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Nobody is arguing for this. Unless you're doing your thing where you game it all out because it amuses you. In that case, proceed.

Different thread, I guess.  But someone mentioned that proportional EV by state was better than winner take all.  I had the information and thought I would share.

Not trying to make a point - but I was curious.  A couple months ago - I ran the scenario of what if all states allocated like Maine and Nebraska - and that wouldn't have helped Clinton.  Again, was curious, but I do think that some people think what Maine and Nebraska does is an improvement.

And then I was also interested in whose vote is worth more in terms of EVs per 1M votes.  It was brought up that California was significantly less value than Wyoming.  Which is true - but I thought the list was kind of interesting.  California ends up being pretty much at the average.  Of course the smaller states have the biggest bang - which we all knew.  And then, battleground states are on the lower end for that metric - as turnout is probably much higher since their vote actually matters in terms of 'flipping' a state.  Or, EC suppresses votes in those states where the outcome is known way in advance.

I think rank voting would be interesting.

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2020 8:53:57 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Nobody is arguing for this. Unless you're doing your thing where you game it all out because it amuses you. In that case, proceed.

I would absolutely argue for each state to award its EVs according to its own statewide popular vote. That would be constitutional, today. It would be a rounded version of national popular vote.

For example, Minnesota has 10 EVs. They could award 1 EV to each 10% of statewide popular vote earned. That would've given Clinton and Trump 4 each, guaranteed, and then some reasonable, fair method could be used to award the remainder.

But I have no idea how he calculated the numbers above.

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2020 8:36:42 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Had we allocated EV proportionally in 2016 the final results would have been:

Clinton - 262
Trump - 260
Johnson - 14
Stein - 1
McMullin - 1

What are the rules of the EV? Simple, whoever has the most wins, and that's it?

Or do they have anything more complex than that? Like reallocating the fringe votes?

[donut]

Oct 8, 2020 12:02:10 GMT -5 @gophers4life said:

Oct 8, 2020 8:53:57 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Nobody is arguing for this. Unless you're doing your thing where you game it all out because it amuses you. In that case, proceed.

I would absolutely argue for each state to award its EVs according to its own statewide popular vote. That would be constitutional, today. It would be a rounded version of national popular vote.

For example, Minnesota has 10 EVs. They could award 1 EV to each 10% of statewide popular vote earned. That would've given Clinton and Trump 4 each, guaranteed, and then some reasonable, fair method could be used to award the remainder.

But I have no idea how he calculated the numbers above.

What’s the difference between that and just doing it by popular vote? You’re just making it less accurate because of rounding. The results are likely to be the same.

[cindra]

Oct 8, 2020 12:04:52 GMT -5 @gophers4life said:

Oct 8, 2020 8:36:42 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Had we allocated EV proportionally in 2016 the final results would have been:

Clinton - 262
Trump - 260
Johnson - 14
Stein - 1
McMullin - 1

What are the rules of the EV? Simple, whoever has the most wins, and that's it?

Or do they have anything more complex than that? Like reallocating the fringe votes?

If someone gets a majority (270+) they win outright.

If there's no majority, it goes to the house, where each state delegation votes for president out of the 3 candidates who did best (26 to win).

Each senator votes individually for vice president out of the two candidates who did the best (51 to win).

No tiebreakers, so in an even split in either chamber there would have to be some politicking to figure it out.