Electoral Maps

Nov 20, 2016 11:15 PM

Current System

In this system, all but two (Maine and Nebraska) are winner-take-all. This how the map actually played out, with Trump beating Clinton with comfortable margins, while losing the popular vote.

Congressional Districts

This is the system that Maine and Nebraska use, where two electoral votes go the state's winner, and each district assigns one electoral vote. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the actual presidential vote results per district, so I just used the actual House of Representative results, and that shouldn't be too different. Gerrymandering ensures that Trump still wins by comfortable margins.

Proportional

Electoral votes are assigned proportionally per state. I calculated this by assigning votes to reduce the amount of total "error", as in difference between popular percentage and electoral percentage. There was a lot math, forgive me for any mistakes. It should be noted that while Clinton does receive more votes than Trump, no candidate receives the required 270 votes in this situation, instead the House of Representatives would decide.

People must've forgot that we are a representative democracy. If we were to change this system then we should get rid of states altogether

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Candidates campaign with the rules of the electoral in mind. Different rules would mean they campaign differently as well. Can't take (1)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

This is really helpful, kudos for the effort. First time I see the alternatives presented with data and analysis.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

This is cool, but I don't think your logic about assigning votes for congressman districts holds up. I believe NC would've gone 9-6 trump

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Been doing the same thing. Thanks for doing it first lol

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(2) popular vote as face value.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

This is cool. Not sure why people are downvoting it

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

The electoral college only changed the out come of the election 5 times so it really seem to me like it protects smaller states at all

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Wow, was supposed to say seems like it doesn't, wth

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Because of the distribution of republicans and democrats, it can only screw democrats.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's not really gerrymandering for population centers to be a district (urban areas are where Democrats are strong) it would be 1/2.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Gerrymandering to split large cities/urban areas in to segments and include them with rural areas with less population.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Because rather than each district voting the way they are likely to redrawing to include large amounts of opposition voters is gerrymanderin

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And voters in a small area do not have the same concerns as rural voters so having their votes represent disparate areas would be fallacious

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Forefathers wanted to make sure smaller states had better representation. Why is this so hard to understand?

9 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 11

Yet they still get ignored as fly over state's so would you say that the founding fathers were right here?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

OK, can we follow the Founder's Intent and let Electors vote their conscience? Conservatives love the Founders...except when they don't.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Then tell the states that don't allow faithless electorates to fix that.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

By this logic we should repeal the 15th and the 19th amendments because it's not what the founding fathers wanted.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thats the worst logic ever was thinking that the founding fathers created a perfect system. They created a system that could be changed.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

To be fair, we fucked the system royally in the 20s when we stopped adjusting for population growth and capped the # of reps .

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can't fit 2000 reps in the capital

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Agreed. I don't have a good compromise to solve that either, but that is when the representation got wonky.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Forefathers also had the individual with the second most electoral votes earn the VP spot. IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!!!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think the US might have preferred that this election.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pence scares me more than Trump honestly. But just using the argument "The founders wanted.." is so weak.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Exactly. Trump Clinton would be the elected.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If things aren't gerrymandered, explain the GOP house majority

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

People vote for president, but choose not to vote for their congressman.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except they don't get it (its turned into swing state focused), and rural voters have more voting power than urban.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Yes. Cities are necessarily more populous than rural areas so the system favors rural voters. If all counted equally, rural voters never win

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Which is a problem. People need a win every now and again or they stop being invested in the system. They stop voting and start shooting.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

2. what the majority of voters want, just because they happen to be more concentrated?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

1. How does that make sense? Might as well give 3rd party voters 100,000x the voting power because otherwise they'd never win. Why ignore

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Otherwise California and New York will have the power to tell all other states what to do

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

So instead the midwest (or swing states) gets to tell the majority what to do? You see the logic fail there right?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Because nearly unpopulated areas were territories (not states) back then.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They also knew that states that just entered the union would be less populated than established ones, but needed representation.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm fine with them getting representation. The system isn't the problem; gaming the system is.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You don't think a popular vote system will be gamed?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where did I say that? And where did I advocate popular vote, too?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Liberals love democratic systems - except when it works against them.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 6

A place where the majority vote loses is not democratic, friendo.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It sure as hell is.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Are you actually retarded?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Clearly, you are.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Might be.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I mean you really are quite butt hurt, aren't ya? It's ok, snowflake... people like me defend the defenseless. You're welcome.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1