Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 25676 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #850 on: June 17, 2020, 11:09:25 AM »
The biggest flaw is winner takes all. When Florida splits 51/49 the winner shouldn't get all the electors. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states doing it right.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #851 on: June 17, 2020, 11:16:12 AM »
Nebraska uses Congressional districts so the electors can be gerrymandered. I don't think that is an improvement. Breaking into smaller regions can lead to even weirder outcomes, particularly if the regions are drawn to given one side a particular advantage.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #852 on: June 17, 2020, 11:18:03 AM »
We've seen the poll/reality disconnect before - smart people will be dubious, or at least not look to polls as good predictors. The media and current climate have driven a lot of right-leaning voters underground, much more so than in 2016.

They're not going to have Trump bumper stickers or walk around wearing maga hats (look, a racist!) and many of them won't tip their hand to a pollster either.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #853 on: June 17, 2020, 11:18:38 AM »
Quote
Yep, but the flaw is laid bare and is system breaking if Trump wins a second term while losing the popular vote 47%-52%.
The flaw is not "the system" if Trump still manages 47%.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #854 on: June 17, 2020, 11:31:26 AM »
Gerrymandering doesn't really affect the electoral college, with the possible exception of voter suppression tactics, but that is already its own topic.

The EC is a feature - arguably, that was the contract the country made with smaller states.  Just because it works as designed isn't necessarily a flaw.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #855 on: June 17, 2020, 11:32:57 AM »
Quote
Yep, but the flaw is laid bare and is system breaking if Trump wins a second term while losing the popular vote 47%-52%.
The flaw is not "the system" if Trump still manages 47%.

It doesn't bode well that Republicans are determined to limit voting in poor urban districts with high Democratic voting tendencies.  Trump could indeed end up with a tiny popular vote win with 3-5% of the electorate unfairly denied the opportunity to vote.

I probably think the electoral college is more valuable than its harsher critics.  If we went to a purely popular vote, no candidate would ever visit a state that didn't contribute a significant benefit to their chances.  I think there would be a one-vote majority campaign priority to find the single vote needed to give their candidate the slightest majority (or plurality).  That means they don't need to focus on states where they would split the vote evenly, but instead run up the tally in states they are favored in and boost their vote just enough in states they won't win in order to keep their overall majority.

IMO, there are two better systems than what we now have, both of which preserve the electoral college but do away with people acting as electors, which would eliminate faithless electors. 

First option, use ranked-choice-voting in every state, so that one candidate is guaranteed to get a majority. All of the electors in that state would then be bound to cast unanimous votes for the winner. 

Second option, require all states to allocate their electors according to the national popular vote.  That would ensure that the most and least populous states would have equal influence on the outcome on a per capita (really, per Congressional seat) basis.  Fractional electoral votes would be required.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #856 on: June 17, 2020, 11:47:33 AM »
It doesn't bode well that Republicans are determined to limit voting in poor urban districts with high Democratic voting tendencies.  Trump could indeed end up with a tiny popular vote win with 3-5% of the electorate unfairly denied the opportunity to vote.
I doubt the voter suppression efforts will be significantly different this time out than other times.  Although there have been changes to the voting rights act that may have an effect...

Also, how would the second option ever diverge from a simple "purely popular vote"?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #857 on: June 17, 2020, 11:48:34 AM »
Gerrymandering doesn't really affect the electoral college, with the possible exception of voter suppression tactics, but that is already its own topic.

The EC is a feature - arguably, that was the contract the country made with smaller states.  Just because it works as designed isn't necessarily a flaw.

The EC as thought originally conceived was similar to how senators would be elected. Originally senators would be elected by state legislators. It was originally conceived that the electors would be a group that selected the president, not just rubber stamped their states choice. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a need for there to be actual electors.

Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #858 on: June 17, 2020, 12:02:42 PM »
I probably think the electoral college is more valuable than its harsher critics.  If we went to a purely popular vote, no candidate would ever visit a state that didn't contribute a significant benefit to their chances.  I think there would be a one-vote majority campaign priority to find the single vote needed to give their candidate the slightest majority (or plurality).  That means they don't need to focus on states where they would split the vote evenly, but instead run up the tally in states they are favored in and boost their vote just enough in states they won't win in order to keep their overall majority.

We're already at the point where lots of states get ignored because the conclusion in that state is a forgone conclusion. What the EC does do is focus the candidates on the same states. The fact that we are likely to see a national election where neither candidate does much in three of the largest states of the union (California, NY, and Texas) then there's also a problem with that. Its not like Wyoming is getting a lot of love from the EC, forgone conclusion again, even though a vote in Wyoming is worth 3 to 4 times as much as one in California.

By letting the decision get decided by who ekes out a win in the closest states we are adding a lot of randomness and potential for small errors be magnified. The butterfly ballot and Trump winning by a combined 100,000 votes in 5 key states show the effects of this.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #859 on: June 17, 2020, 12:05:28 PM »
Quote
If Biden gets over 50% nationwide and wins by 5+ points as he's polling to do currently and still loses then it points to a real flaw in the system. Gore and Clinton both failed to get majorities, simply getting pluralities but if we end up in a system where a majority loses and a plurality has lost 3 times in 7 elections it points to a larger democratic issue.

The flaw is called the Electoral College, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Design feature. Madison may have mocked "the conspiracy of the (populous) states" but it was the entire reason delegates from Rhode Island (not Virginia--that was Madison) wanted both the Senate and the Electoral College.

And where it concerns the EC as practiced in all but two states, it can hardly be called Gerrymandering. The borders as they are have existed for over 100 years for every state involved.

Voter suppression can be argued, but don't confuse voters not being bothered to vote because "their guy" isn't that exciting(as happened to Romney when over 2 million Conservative voters remained at home--Republicans didn't cry about voter suppression then), with some vast conspiracy to keep Democrats from voting.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 12:13:01 PM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #860 on: June 17, 2020, 12:11:33 PM »
I don't see any way to avoid candidates maximizing their time and efforts by avoiding spending efforts where they are not needed. The only way to prevent his is to create a system where they are needed everywhere always. Not sure if that would strain the budgets of these campaigns, which are already way, way too expensive. In my view the reforms needed should include vastly reducing campaign budgets, and even capping what can be spent. Even better, for it all to be provided with public monies and no private contributions allowed at all. But I digress: so long as spending efficiency is relevant, you can't get away from it no matter what your system. Make small states matter a lot, or matter little, either way a candidate will ignore that state if it's considered to already be in the bag (or impossible).

The only way I can see to make candidates threat every single state as being terribly relevant would be to have the election decided based at least in part by gains made in a state. So if in the previous general election D got 47% and R 51%, D getting 49% this time would be worth 'something' in terms of final score, even if they 'lose the state'. That way you'd have to fight to prevent any gains by the other side. This is just a mathematical thought experiment, meant to be an example of how to refocus campaign goals: there has to be incentive.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #861 on: June 17, 2020, 12:11:40 PM »
Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

If the Democrats wanted to fix that, they could have done so any number of times. The cap on 435 representatives is a rule passed by the House, which can be altered by the House any time they wish. It only requires a majority vote.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #862 on: June 17, 2020, 12:12:01 PM »
Voter suppression can be argued, but don't confuse voters not being bothered to vote because "their guy" isn't that exciting(as happened to Romney when over 2 million Conservative voters remained at home--Republicans didn't cry about voter suppression then), with some vast conspiracy to keep Democrats from voting.
Exactly right - Romney was a "meh" vote, whereas multiple southern states had to be basically colonized by the federal government (for the purposes of voting) in order to impede their attempts to deny the franchise to minorities and opponents.  And now, with parts of the voting rights act being successfully stripped, those tendencies have been returning with a vengeance.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #863 on: June 17, 2020, 12:46:09 PM »
Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

If the Democrats wanted to fix that, they could have done so any number of times. The cap on 435 representatives is a rule passed by the House, which can be altered by the House any time they wish. It only requires a majority vote.

Fake news. It is not a rule, it is a law. It can be changed, but only through the normal legislative process. Permanent Apportionment Act

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #864 on: June 17, 2020, 01:21:48 PM »
The only way I can see to make candidates threat every single state as being terribly relevant would be to have the election decided based at least in part by gains made in a state. So if in the previous general election D got 47% and R 51%, D getting 49% this time would be worth 'something' in terms of final score, even if they 'lose the state'. That way you'd have to fight to prevent any gains by the other side. This is just a mathematical thought experiment, meant to be an example of how to refocus campaign goals: there has to be incentive.

I think you're basically saying keep the elector selection statewide. But apportion the delegates proportionately to the votes cast in the state? (Where obviously that would end up being a function of how many electors a state has)

I could see good and bad things from that. It would make California and New York matter more, as even shifting a couple percentage points could mean several more EC votes(and fewer for the other guy). While Wyoming still wouldn't matter much, with three electors, the cutoffs would likely be 34% and 67% respectively. Although it could warrant a little more Democratic attention.

Trump won Wyoming in 2016 with 67.4% of the vote. Hillary won 21.6% of the vote. Which actually brings in another question when you're dealing with a fractional apportionment as would have happened there.

Also we need to revisit the bigger states for a moment as well, in this case I'm going to look at Utah in 2016. They have 6 EC votes. Every 16.66~% of the vote is 1 EC ballot.

Hillary won 27.46% of the vote. So she's at 1 and 2/3rds of an EC vote.
Trump won 45.54% of the vote. So he's at 2 and 3/4ths of an EC vote.
McMullin won 21.54 of the vote. So he's at 1 and 1/3rd of an EC vote.
nobody else obtained more than 4% of the vote in Utah. In this case it would like Utah would have split 2 EC votes for Hillary, 3 for Trump, and the final vote would have gone to McMullin for a total of 6 EC votes cast.

So now we have a three way race for president in the EC vote in the House.

But now let us take a look at California, where wither 55 EC votes, 1.8181~% of the vote(simplified to 1.8%) equals 1 EC vote.
Hillary won 61.73% of the vote. That nets her 34.29 EC Votes
Trump won 31.62% of the vote. That nets him 17.56 EC Votes
That makes 51.85 EC votes between them out of 55.
Johnson(libertarian) won 3.37% of the vote. That nets him 1.87 EC Votes.
Stein(Green) won 1.96% of the vote. That would net her 1.09 votes.
Which gets up to 54.81 EC votes cast
As per Wiki, McMullin won 0.28% of the vote, and "others" won another 1.04% of the vote. So not enough to decisively apportion another EC ballot.
Trump and Johnson are the two candidates with a greater than .5 EC Vote apportioned to them so they'll be rounded up.
34 EC votes for Hillary, 18 for Trump, 2 for Johnson, 1 for Stein for a total of 55 so thankfully we're not needing to play other games to get the correct total.

Except now just between Utah and California, we now have a 5 way race for PotUS in the EC. The constitution limits congress to the top three, so it'd be a race between Trump, Clinton, and Johnson(with 2 EC votes).

I'm not going to "math out" New York, but with 29 EC votes, a candidate would need 3.44% to get a full EC vote apportioned. Johnson obtained 2.29% of the vote in New York, and Stein obtained 1.40% of it. McMullin and others combined amassed a further 0.79% of the vote. So it would be a reasonable bet that Johnson would have picked up a third EC vote from New York as well.

Texas would have given Johnson another EC Vote as well. With 38 EC votes, 2.63% of the vote is needed for a full EC vote apportionment.
Johnson won 3.16% of the vote, for  1.2 EC votes
Stein/McMullin/"others" combine for 1.37% of the vote for a combined share of 0.52 EC votes
Trump won 52.23% of the vote, for 19.85 EC votes
Hillary won 43.24% of the vote, 16.44 EC Votes

So that'd be 20 for Trump, 16(+1?) for Hillary, and 1 for Johnson.

From a quick run down the table, I don't see that apportionment method throwing any other EC votes to a third party in 2016, but it would have thrown 6 EC votes to third parties in 2016.

Not sure how the rest of the electoral landscape would have altered with the change to methodology across the various states. Trump won 304 to 227 in 2016(7 faithless electors).
In making Texas, and Utah proportional, Trump loses 21 EC votes while Hillary gains 19 EC votes.
But in exchange Hillary lost 21 EC votes in California, while Trump gains 18.
So 304 to 227 turns into 301 to 225 to 3 to 1 to 1

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #865 on: June 17, 2020, 01:23:56 PM »
Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

If the Democrats wanted to fix that, they could have done so any number of times. The cap on 435 representatives is a rule passed by the House, which can be altered by the House any time they wish. It only requires a majority vote.

Fake news. It is not a rule, it is a law. It can be changed, but only through the normal legislative process. Permanent Apportionment Act

Still only requires a majority vote of congress. And do you seriously think the Republicans are going to fight that? (Unless the Democrats monkey with more than just the number of seats available)

The problem here is nobody in the House of Representatives has an interest in diluting their own power, and neither party wants to pursue the matter.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #866 on: June 17, 2020, 01:41:19 PM »
Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #867 on: June 17, 2020, 01:45:12 PM »
Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

Last time I checked, the states most likely to benefit from more seats in the House tend to vote (R) on the Presidential scale. Unless they massively boosted the number of seats involved. Which is probably why the Democrats haven't been chomping at the bit on that.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #868 on: June 17, 2020, 01:59:40 PM »
Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

Last time I checked, the states most likely to benefit from more seats in the House tend to vote (R) on the Presidential scale. Unless they massively boosted the number of seats involved. Which is probably why the Democrats haven't been chomping at the bit on that.

To "Wyoming scale" the house would require almost doubling the number of reps. Increasing the number of reps by 10 or 20 at this point doesn't impact that much. Increasing by 5-10 seats just depends on who was closest to the cutoff at the last census. The only real bill that had a chance several years ago was one that increased the number of reps by 2. DC was going to get one and at the time Utah would have gotten the other.

The only reason democrats would get on board with a massive increase like doubling the size of reps would be to dilute the +2 impact of the EC, since the republicans tend to have an advantage in the number of states that matter there. Another weird, but not mainstream, dem pro-proposals have been to split California into 3 or 4 smaller states, the danger there would be that at least 1 would likely be a swing state but it definitely shifts the balance in the Senate.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #869 on: June 17, 2020, 02:26:21 PM »
To "Wyoming scale" the house would require almost doubling the number of reps. Increasing the number of reps by 10 or 20 at this point doesn't impact that much. Increasing by 5-10 seats just depends on who was closest to the cutoff at the last census. The only real bill that had a chance several years ago was one that increased the number of reps by 2. DC was going to get one and at the time Utah would have gotten the other.

The only reason democrats would get on board with a massive increase like doubling the size of reps would be to dilute the +2 impact of the EC, since the republicans tend to have an advantage in the number of states that matter there. Another weird, but not mainstream, dem pro-proposals have been to split California into 3 or 4 smaller states, the danger there would be that at least 1 would likely be a swing state but it definitely shifts the balance in the Senate.

Doing some googling around, I found someone seems to have done the math on 2016. It's the +2 seats from the senate that really skew it, but doesn't completely change things in 2016.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/99qpo4/2016_electoral_map_if_the_wyoming_rule_was_used/

Basically if the Wyoming Rule had been used prior to 2016, Trump would have won 368 to 280.

Although it seems there are some minor discrepancies between sites I'm looking at. The numbers from that reddit post would suggest 435 house seats. While another writeup based on the 2010 census claims 434 House Seats. So I guess I'll attribute the extra seat to a rounding error on the part of one of them.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #870 on: June 17, 2020, 02:33:57 PM »
I think you're basically saying keep the elector selection statewide. But apportion the delegates proportionately to the votes cast in the state? (Where obviously that would end up being a function of how many electors a state has)

Well, I wasn't really meaning that, but rather just invented a mathematical construct as a thought experiment to say that if shifts in voting materially mattered then it wouldn't be enough to just say 'we won'. I wasn't specifying what the mechanism should be of weighing the effect of it, only that without any mechanism what you will see is a candidate avoiding areas where their efforts would have little effect. If shifts in voting percentages materially affected the final tally then perhaps it would give incentive at least to the other side to get in there and steal your numbers, even if only by a few percent, and even if they knew they would still not 'win'.

As far as what the mechanism should be, I should think that it would be separate from the electors altogether, and maybe be a separate calculation, so that maybe electors count for (I'm making this up) 80% of your total 'score' in the election, the other 20% being gains/losses in various states (which could very well come up as net zero if both sides do roughly as well as each other). And I would say percentage gains, not absolute numbers, because then we get into ignoring small stages again.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #871 on: June 17, 2020, 02:39:04 PM »
I've now stumbled upon mention of the cube root rule, and looking to see if anyone has crunched numbers on it relative to 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_root_rule

That would massively change the size of congress. Although I've seen two descriptions of it. Wiki having the second.

The other place I encountered it did the cube root calculation, then subtracted 100 to reflect the Senate.

Wiki's description doesn't account for the Senate, and comes up with 676 House seats after the 2010 Census.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #872 on: June 17, 2020, 02:42:16 PM »
To "Wyoming scale" the house would require almost doubling the number of reps. Increasing the number of reps by 10 or 20 at this point doesn't impact that much. Increasing by 5-10 seats just depends on who was closest to the cutoff at the last census. The only real bill that had a chance several years ago was one that increased the number of reps by 2. DC was going to get one and at the time Utah would have gotten the other.

The only reason democrats would get on board with a massive increase like doubling the size of reps would be to dilute the +2 impact of the EC, since the republicans tend to have an advantage in the number of states that matter there. Another weird, but not mainstream, dem pro-proposals have been to split California into 3 or 4 smaller states, the danger there would be that at least 1 would likely be a swing state but it definitely shifts the balance in the Senate.

Doing some googling around, I found someone seems to have done the math on 2016. It's the +2 seats from the senate that really skew it, but doesn't completely change things in 2016.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/99qpo4/2016_electoral_map_if_the_wyoming_rule_was_used/

Basically if the Wyoming Rule had been used prior to 2016, Trump would have won 368 to 280.

Although it seems there are some minor discrepancies between sites I'm looking at. The numbers from that reddit post would suggest 435 house seats. While another writeup based on the 2010 census claims 434 House Seats. So I guess I'll attribute the extra seat to a rounding error on the part of one of them.

What skewed results in 2016 was Trump basically winning every close state, particularly the big ones. Penn, Mich, Wi, and a couple others were combined decided by less than 100k votes. The +2 from the Senate impacts things but not as much as the winner take all format that the states operate under. Imagine how different elections would be if Cali with all its delegates was a swing state. If 50,000 votes in California could swing an election then the tone of presidential elections could be insanely different.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #873 on: June 17, 2020, 02:44:14 PM »
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the last thing the country needs is more members of Congress.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #874 on: June 17, 2020, 02:47:41 PM »
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the last thing the country needs is more members of Congress.

Why? It dilutes their individual power.

But there is an upper limit on the number of people who can work together as functional group. On the other hand it puts the representatives closer to the people.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #875 on: June 17, 2020, 02:55:17 PM »
Well, I stumbled into this political science paper in one of my search queries:
http://polisci.uci.edu/~jcervas/papers/2019/SSQ/inversions.pdf

One portion stuck out in the quick skim through it:

Quote
There are a number of interesting results shown in Table 2. First, malapportionment effects, and especially the effects of the two-state bonus, are not that large. For example, in 2016, Donald Trump would have been elected even had there been no two-seat bonus. In fact, he would have won in all the different unit-rule configurations, only losing when a proportional rule such as the popular vote is instituted. Indeed, as can be derived from the differences between Columns 2 and 3 of Table 2, in only three elections in American history has the two-seat bonus feature of the EC been decisive in reversing an election result. The first time this happened was in 1876 when the two-seat bonus benefited the Republican candidate, then again in 1916 when it benefited the Democratic candidate, and finally again in 2000 when it benefited the Republican candidate. However, we observe that the over the last seven elections, the two-seat bonus has consistently favored the Republican candidate, even when it has not had an impact on election outcome. On the other hand, glancing through Table 2’s first two columns reveals several instances where a reversal almost happened. In most of these instances, the Democratic candidate came out on top, for example, in 1960.

Second, while proportionality variants of EC allocations clearly can dramatically change the magnitude of seat outcomes relative to vote outcomes, it is only in the period from 1880 to 1900 that we see repeated evidence of changes in the presidential winner based on choice of a proportional as opposed to a winner-take-all rule, though, of course, we also see this in 2000 and 2016.

Third, we note that the “reform” that would have the most dramatic effect on recent elections is a winner-take-all rule based on district outcomes. In recent elections where a Democratic Party candidate won the election, such a rule would reverse the EC. That such inversions provide net benefits to the Republican Party can be explained by the degree to which Democratic voting strength is inefficiently concentrated in urban districts (Chen and Rodden, 2013), and the degree to which there is greater Republican unified control of state legislatures and governorship than is true for Democrats, giving Republicans a much greater opportunity to engage in successful partisan gerrymandering of congressional district lines. In 1960, 1976, and 2012, for example, the outcomes would have been reversed (all three times benefiting the Republican candidate) if we allocated based on the results within congressional districts plus the plurality state winner getting two bonus seats. In 1976, however, not giving the two-seat bonus to the state plurality winner reverses yet again back to the actual winner, Jimmy Carter (i.e., benefits the Democratic candidate).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #876 on: June 17, 2020, 03:20:26 PM »
Oh, have another quote block coming shortly. That above block wasn't expanding the size of the EC, just found the section where they tackle that one, although it should ALSO be noted that they "simplified" their simulations, they're only counting the Democrat and Republican votes for their purposes.

So their results are based on Republican and Democratic President votes only, third party votes aren't part of their model.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #877 on: June 17, 2020, 03:48:38 PM »
Well, they didn't write-up that one as concisely as the other. They're also using the wiki version where the Senate is not being used to count against the size of the House. But going by their tables...

Under the Cubed Root Rule on its own(remember, they're not factoring in third parties), they show that Gore would have won in 2000, but Trump would have still won in 2016.

If you did Cubed Root Rule with national application of proportional vote allocation (to whole numbers) including the +2 votes through the senate, Bush wins in 2000, but Trump loses in 2016. Getting rid of the +2 senate votes would make 2000 a Gore win, and would have also been a Trump loss in 2016. Allowing for fractional values would have made 2000 and 2016 Democrat wins.

Cubed Root by itself would have prevented the electoral flip in 1876, but would have done nothing about 1888.

Cubed Root proportional vote would have caused an electoral flip of the popular votes in 1880 without regard to which of the 4 methods they used. (The EC went with the popular vote winner that year) BUT any of the four variants would have prevented an electoral flip in 1888.

Cubed Root proportional vote (whole number) would have cause an electoral flip in 1900, where the EC didn't flip in reality.

Obviously they can't do historical comparisons by district for cubed root as those districts never existed historically.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #878 on: July 06, 2020, 10:59:35 AM »
Totalitaritism is not actually a thing.  It's a cognitive failure connecting ideas to words, usually indicating a lack of understanding of or aversion to the concept the person is trying to express.  Other examples that support this view:

"Discgrace" - referring to members of the non-FOX media and press
"Melanie" - His wife's name
"tarrifs" - referring to relaxing tariffs in discussions with Xi
"Marine Core" - Talking about visiting Marine Corps Miramar base
"dieing mediocre career" - Comment about Alec Baldwin
"President Rajoy" - Referring to Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy; Trump made the mistake twice in the meeting
"Sometimes protest is needed in order to heel,and heel we will!"
"covfefe" - Tweet about negative press coverage he receives

Bonus:

"Promote the possibility of lasting peach" - Israel and Palestinians

There are dozens more.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 11:02:02 AM by Kasandra »