Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087077 Posts in 71981 Topics- by 19233 Members - Latest Member: Midnight1961
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 134   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Our unbalanced POTUS  (Read 88964 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #900 on: Mar 27, 2017, 06:37PM »

Remember, congressional districts are allocated based on population.  Many "red" states have only one representative while some cities will have several just for the city.

So you will have a state like New York, where the City is heavily Democratic (with the exception of Staten Island) and some of the upstate cities are Democratic while all the rural areas are Republican.  The vote in the cities is enough to pull the state Democratic even though by area it looks quite Republican.

Congressional districts are allocated on population, but Senate seats are not. I believe both are considered in granting electors.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #901 on: Mar 27, 2017, 07:10PM »

Congressional districts are allocated on population, but Senate seats are not. I believe both are considered in granting electors.

Correct.  In my state we have two congressmen (women) and two Senators for 4 electoral votes.  State population is about 1,000,000.  That's 1 EV per 250,000.  Much higher than, say, Massachusetts (1 EV per 619,000 population).
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #902 on: Mar 27, 2017, 07:34PM »

Chart showing the population per electoral vote for each state.

Turns out, I'm in the most weakly represented state (Texas).


I'd be curious to see a version of that chart that shows actual cast votes per elector.

Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #903 on: Mar 27, 2017, 08:13PM »

You would have to factor the chart by participation.  I know New Hampshire has one of the highest.  I think we were close to 80% in the 2016 election.  We were at 70% in 2008.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #904 on: Mar 27, 2017, 08:22PM »

You would have to factor the chart by participation.  I know New Hampshire has one of the highest.  I think we were close to 80% in the 2016 election.  We were at 70% in 2008.

You can factor it lots of ways.  But I'd like to see actual turn-out voters per elector.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #905 on: Mar 27, 2017, 08:28PM »

You can factor it lots of ways.  But I'd like to see actual turn-out voters per elector.

You'd have to get voter turnouts by state (in percentages) and apply that to the data from which your chart was made.  You might want to ask the folks at fivethirtyeight.com if they actually did this.  If they did, it would have been in the late November to early December timeframe.  Those kinds of statistics are what they specialize in.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #906 on: Mar 28, 2017, 06:58AM »

I want the actual voter to actual elector ratio. That is an interesting number to me in itself.

You're assuming I want it for a wrong reason. It's not your place to assume that.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #907 on: Mar 28, 2017, 07:26AM »

I'm not assuming anything.  I think you have a good idea.  I was just suggesting somewhere that they may have actually done what you ask.

During the election, fivethirtyeight had a voter "power index" where they factored the likelihood a state could switch alliances and the ratio of electors to population.  Since my state is considered very purple, we had a fairly strong "power index" for each voter.  A state with a high elector to population value but little chance of switching (like Wyoming) would have a low "power index", as would a state with a low elector to population value.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #908 on: Mar 28, 2017, 10:31AM »

What do the colors on that chart mean? Also, is it arranged from largest to smallest?
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #909 on: Mar 28, 2017, 02:16PM »

What do the colors on that chart mean? Also, is it arranged from largest to smallest?

I'm not sure what the colors mean, if anything (blue light to red light across the visible spectrum goes from shorter to longer wavelengths, but I don't think that means anything here), but they're listed from left to right from largest population to smallest, and from what I saw looking into it I think they used the '08 census data (Georgia's gone from 9th to 8th most populous, and I think there were a couple of other discrepancies).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #910 on: Mar 29, 2017, 11:01AM »

What do the colors on that chart mean? Also, is it arranged from largest to smallest?

They are arranged in order of number of Electoral votes, I believe
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #911 on: Mar 29, 2017, 12:58PM »

Just a flesh wound...

Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #912 on: Mar 29, 2017, 05:17PM »

The BBC weighs in:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
Logged
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #913 on: Mar 29, 2017, 07:02PM »


Another great article.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #914 on: Mar 29, 2017, 07:55PM »

I did some quick calculations pasting 2016 state results into a spreadsheet.

The state with the fewest voters per elector was Wyoming (86,261)

The state with the most voters per elector was Washington (401,178)


So, if you went to the polls in Wyoming you had about 4.6 times more electoral college influence than a voter in Washington.


Other states of interest


DC 104,196
CA 257,832
IL 276,798
NH 185,465
NY 266,239
TX 249,168


Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #915 on: Mar 29, 2017, 08:05PM »

Now you have to factor your results by how much of a "swing" state each is.  Wyoming is solidly red.  California is solidly blue.  New Hampshire is pretty purple, as is North Carolina.

Maine apportions the electors for each congressional district by who wins the district (one other state does this; I think Nebraska).

I kind of like the idea that each congressional district elects its own elector with two electors going to the winner of each state.  It would make the EC a lot more reflective of the popular vote.  Might also make some of the larger states have more face time with each candidate.  For example, Texas might have two or three Democratic electors, while California might have 5 or so Republican electors.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #916 on: Mar 29, 2017, 08:15PM »

Considering in swing-stateness might tell you how critical it was for them to get to the polls but it wouldn't alter the actual voters per Elector result.



Maine apportions the electors for each congressional district by who wins the district (one other state does this; I think Nebraska).


Both states award one Elector for each congressional district, and two Electors for the statewide winner. However, no matter how you figure the voter per Elector numbers in those states, they don't fall outside the high and low bounds I noted above.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #917 on: Mar 29, 2017, 08:24PM »

You can't significantly alter the votes per elector result.  It's based on how the Electoral College is set up.

Note that no state can have less than one Representative so even a state with one resident has one Representative and two Senators (although I think there is a minimum number of residents you have to have to apply for Statehood).  Populous states have many congressional districts but the same two senators so these states will have more residents per elector.

I was just pointing out that the voters per elector is only one factor in trying to predict an election.

If you really are miffed that you have one elector for every 300,000 of you in Texas, move to a purple swing state with small population, like Maine.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 6298

View Profile
« Reply #918 on: Mar 29, 2017, 08:36PM »


I was just pointing out that the voters per elector is only one factor in trying to predict an election.


There's the problem!  You think I'm trying to predict an election.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3323

View Profile
« Reply #919 on: Mar 30, 2017, 05:52AM »

Now you have to factor your results by how much of a "swing" state each is.  Wyoming is solidly red.  California is solidly blue.  New Hampshire is pretty purple, as is North Carolina.

Maine apportions the electors for each congressional district by who wins the district (one other state does this; I think Nebraska).

I kind of like the idea that each congressional district elects its own elector with two electors going to the winner of each state.  It would make the EC a lot more reflective of the popular vote.  Might also make some of the larger states have more face time with each candidate.  For example, Texas might have two or three Democratic electors, while California might have 5 or so Republican electors.

GAAAHHHH!  Dear lord no.  Sounds like a good idea... But it just rewards gerrymandering even more.  For example, MI has had a solidly republican congressional delegation for quite a while.  Even when there are far more democratic votes than republican votes for congress.  All gerrymandered.

Fix the gerrymandering first, then open up the primary system for non-partisan general elections, and the EC problem will sort itself out naturally.  No, it will never be fully democratic, but neither is the presidential nominating process.  The EC just reflects that.  If somebody can come up with a better nominating process that isn't just parliamentary rule, I'd like to hear it.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 134   Go Up
Print
Jump to: