270-268 scenario

[pseudonym]

I haven't heard this discussed much. Sorry if I missed a thread on this.

This is a very reasonable map:


Why it is reasonable:

1. Trump leads in the polls in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada.
2. Harris leads in Wisconsin and Michigan.
3. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have voted together in every election since 1988. They have voted together in 10 out of the last 11 presidential elections. Trump won all three in 2016 and lost all three in 2020. If Harris wins two, she very likely wins all three.

Why it matters:

Trump is right to be furious: a federal error could cost him the election

Mistakes in the census have given Democratic states too many Electoral College votes

www.telegraph.co.uk

Feed these over- and undercounts through the system used to apportion electoral college votes, and analysis from the Heritage Foundation suggests that the results look something like this: Colorado was given one elector more than it should have received, Florida received two too few, Texas one too few, while Minnesota and Rhode Island each cling on to a vote they should have lost.

Had the Census found just 26 fewer people in Minnesota, then the state would have missed out on an elector; it’s now believed that the population was overcounted by about 217,000. Similarly, Florida and Texas needed about 172,000 and 189,000 more residents respectively to each get an additional vote; they were undercounted by approximately 761,000 and 560,000 respectively.

In other words, the correct numbers would flip this exact same map to a Trump victory.

If this is the map, this could end up in the Supreme Court.

For the record, I think it is unfair on both sides. In this scenario, Trump got screwed. If it goes to the courts, it would be just as much of a screwjob to reverse the result from Harris to Trump.

Worst case scenario for the country.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Delaware only has 3 electoral votes. How can it have 1 too many?

 

[HotMop]

Florida gained an electoral vote, where do you get -2?

 

[L4Dawg]

Your story has obvious flaws. Humm.

 

[57stratdawg]

Just get rid of the Electoral College and we don’t have to worry about this stuff.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Your story has obvious flaws. Humm.

I urge everyone here, no matter who you voted for, don't get caught up in all the online hoaxes about stolen elections, changed votes, etc. Let's learn our lesson from 4 years ago.

 

[L4Dawg]

Just get rid of the Electoral College and we don’t have to worry about this stuff.

That would be an unmitigated disaster for small states. That's why it's there in the first place.

 

[pseudonym]

Delaware only has 3 electoral votes. How can it have 1 too many?

You're right. I caught that and removed it. That was being mentioned elsewhere, but I believe it was being confused with Rhode Island, which should have lost one.

 

[pseudonym]

Florida gained an electoral vote, where do you get -2?

Florida gained one compared to 2020. They should have gained three.

 

[patdog]

Just get rid of the Electoral College and we don’t have to worry about this stuff.

That's not realistic. But every state should use the method Nebraska and Maine use. It's not winner take all for the whole state. Winner in each congressional district gets that electoral vote and overall state winner gets the 2 additional votes.

 

[POTUS]

Just get rid of the Electoral College and we don’t have to worry about this stuff.

Rorschach test for stupidity. Civics education is in the toilet. LINK

 

[pseudonym]

Your story has obvious flaws. Humm.

Not my story, but please point out the flaws.

 

[Faustdog]

I urge everyone here, no matter who you voted for, don't get caught up in all the online hoaxes about stolen elections, changed votes, etc. Let's learn our lesson from 4 years ago.

The things I’ve seen posted already are wild, especially the one with the “dot” on the ballot, which the sec of state had to come out already and say was nonsense. That people repeat the nonsense speaks to our broken education system.

They were doing one last week about the voting machines changing votes. It’s all so dumb.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

That's not realistic. But every state should use the method Nebraska and Maine use. It's not winner take all for the whole state. Winner in each congressional district gets that electoral vote and overall state winner gets the 2 additional votes.

That would take gerrymandering to the extreme.

I say do it proportionally, round to the nearest tenth, and get rid of literal electors and just have a number.

In a good year, Republicans would get 3.6 or 3.7 electoral votes from Mississippi, and in a bad year, something like 3.2.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The second Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral college (maybe today) it will gone for the next election. You can count on that.

 

[patdog]

That would take gerrymandering to the extreme.

I say do it proportionally, round to the nearest tenth, and get rid of literal electors and just have a number.

In a good year, Republicans would get 3.6 or 3.7 electoral votes from Mississippi, and in a bad year, something like 3.2.

Heck, all the districts are already gerrymandered. Agree that your way would be better. And agree on just eliminating the electoral college completely. I'm just thinking about things that might possibly be somewhat realistic.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Not my story, but please point out the flaws.

Its awfully convenient timing to have these allocations that have been uncontested for 4 years suddenly be questioned with supposed real numbers on today of all days. Why should we trust some alternate estimate?

Also I remember that New York was in line to get the 436th seat, not Florida, when all the allocation was announced.

 

[ckDOG]

That would be an unmitigated disaster for small states. That's why it's there in the first place.

That possibly also exists with the EC. You can win with only the 12 largest states.

CA
TX
FL
NY
IL
PA
OH
GA
NC
MI
NJ
VA

To be clear, not arguing against the EC. Its power roughly aligns with how legislative power is assigned. But those top 12 can get you there with a middle finger to the remaining 38.

 

[Anon1717806835]

That's not realistic. But every state should use the method Nebraska and Maine use. It's not winner take all for the whole state. Winner in each congressional district gets that electoral vote and overall state winner gets the 2 additional votes.

I think that is a good idea, but I doubt that is realistic either. Things like that would have to be done at the State level. The fact is that with the exception of a the swing states, the State legislatures are controlled by the party that generally carries the State's electoral votes. The Mississippi legislature is not going to make a change that tips so much as 1 electoral vote to the Democrats.

 

[pseudonym]

To those who didn't read the article and think this is a hoax/conspiracy theory:

The Census Bureau itself is estimating the state-specific overcounts/undercounts.

U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2020 Undercount and Overcount Rates by State and the District of Columbia

The 2020 Census estimated undercount and overcount rates by state and the District of Columbia from the PES. Additional languages available.

www.census.gov

 

[L4Dawg]

Not my story, but please point out the flaws.

They were pointed out above. Don't believe everything you read. I look at the Telegraph fairly regularly. It's important to realize what it is.

 

[L4Dawg]

The second Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral college (maybe today) it will gone for the next election. You can count on that.

Not if they are smart it won't. Same for the filibuster.

 

[pseudonym]

Its awfully convenient timing to have these allocations that have been uncontested for 4 years suddenly be questioned with supposed real numbers on today of all days. Why should we trust some alternate estimate?

Also I remember that New York was in line to get the 436th seat, not Florida, when all the allocation was announced.

I agree that this should have been fixed a long time ago.

 

[patdog]

I think that is a good idea, but I doubt that is realistic either. Things like that would have to be done at the State level. The fact is that with the exception of a the swing states, the State legislatures are controlled by the party that generally carries the State's electoral votes. The Mississippi legislature is not going to make a change that tips so much as 1 electoral vote to the Democrats.

Sadly, you're right. No state has any incentive to give some of it's electoral votes to the minority party in that state. It's a terrible way to elect a President though. The whole reason for the electoral college to begin with was they didn't think the common man would know enough about the candidates to make an educated choice. That's not the case now. We have plenty of information (real and mis).

 

[L4Dawg]

That possibly also exists with the EC. You can win with only the 12 largest states.

CA
TX
FL
NY
IL
PA
OH
GA
NC
MI
NJ
VA

To be clear, not arguing against the EC. Its power roughly aligns with how legislative power is assigned. But those top 12 can get you there with a middle finger to the remaining 38.

It still gives small states slightly more votes proportionally than otherwise. That was one of the essential compromises that allowed the Constitution to be ratified.

 

[Darryl Steight]

The second Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral college (maybe today) it will gone for the next election. You can count on that.

LOL I would bet the 17'ing house this will not happen. Only one party is already plotting adding supreme court justices, making PR a state, helicoptering in illegals to swing states, etc.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Thanks to the Electoral College, Pennsylvania (a state that has voted blue in 7 of the last 8 elections) is essentially picking our president today. Is that really more ideal than letting the whole country do it?

We all understand why it was put int place in the 1700s. That doesn't mean we have to stick with it today.

 

[pseudonym]

They were pointed out above. Don't believe everything you read. I look at the Telegraph fairly regularly. It's important to realize what it is.

U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2020 Undercount and Overcount Rates by State and the District of Columbia

The 2020 Census estimated undercount and overcount rates by state and the District of Columbia from the PES. Additional languages available.

www.census.gov

 

[QuaoarsKing]

LOL I would bet the 17'ing house this will not happen. Only one party is already plotting adding supreme court justices, making PR a state, helicoptering in illegals to swing states, etc

Wait, what's the problem with Puerto Rico statehood? Should they just be a colony forever?

37 times now we've let a territory upgrade to a state once they had a large enough population and wanted to take the next step. Puerto Rico has voted to do so multiple times.

 

[johnson86-1]

Sadly, you're right. No state has any incentive to give some of it's electoral votes to the minority party in that state. It's a terrible way to elect a President though. The whole reason for the electoral college to begin with was they didn't think the common man would know enough about the candidates to make an educated choice. That's not the case now. We have plenty of information (real and mis).

That's the reason for electors, and that's basically no longer an issue because they go with the popular vote of their state now (with the exception of Nebraska, which as noted does it a little differently).

The electoral college exists because we have a federalist system. One of the reasons everybody is so damn bitchy about everything is that nobody respects federalism. Everybody thinks everything is their business, regardless of where it is occurring and votes in California have way too much impact in Mississippi and vice versa.

The solution is to move more towards federalism, not do away with it completely. You are going to need federal legislation to do things like regulate air pollution and pollution of interstate waters (but actual interstate waters and discharges into them, not ditches that might possibly impact water quality in some immeasurable way if they're altered), make sure states are not unduly gumming up interstate commerce (but actual interstate commerce, like making sure there aren't trade restrictions or regulations that make interstate travel or using assets with a ton of federal investment like ports unduly difficult), but you don't need the federal government getting involved everytime one state wants to do things differently within its borders than other states.

 

[57stratdawg]

That would be an unmitigated disaster for small states. That's why it's there in the first place.

Well right now the President is picked by about 15 of the 3,300 counties across the country.

I can’t imagine it being worse than that.

 

[57stratdawg]

That's not realistic. But every state should use the method Nebraska and Maine use. It's not winner take all for the whole state. Winner in each congressional district gets that electoral vote and overall state winner gets the 2 additional votes.

That’s reasonable but I don’t love the idea of gerrymandering your way to the White House.

1 vote should just be a vote.

 

[L4Dawg]

Well right now the President is picked by about 15 of the 3,300 counties across the country.

I can’t imagine it being worse than that.

No, the President is picked by all of them. 15 counties do not have enough votes to do that.

 

[Xenomorph]

The second Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral college (maybe today) it will gone for the next election. You can count on that.

I think you are ignorant of how our constitution functions.

If the Republican Party could snap its fingers and ratify amendments it would have done so long, long ago.

 

[johnson86-1]

Well right now the President is picked by about 15 of the 3,300 counties across the country.

I can’t imagine it being worse than that.

I mean, yes, after you account for all the electoral votes awarded by voters in other states, the votes that decide the remaining electoral votes can swing the election. I just don't why those votes being relatively predictable means they somehow don't count.

 

[L4Dawg]

The EC and the Senate were the essential compromises that enabled the Constitution to be ratified. The dynamics that led to that are still in place, even more so in fact.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I think you are ignorant of how our constitution functions.

If the Republican Party could snap their fingers and ratify amendments they would have done so long, long ago.

Almost every Democrat in Congress supports abolishing the electoral college. Almost every blue state legislature has ratified the NPV compact.

If Republicans were on board, the votes would be there. And if that split happens today (I doubt it, but who knows at this point), I do expect them to be there in early 2025

 

[Darryl Steight]

Wait, what's the problem with Puerto Rico statehood? Should they just be a colony forever?

37 times now we've let a territory upgrade to a state once they had a large enough population and wanted to take the next step. Puerto Rico has voted to do so multiple times.

I don't have a problem, and don't blame their citizens for wanting to become a state. I would too if I were them - it's all only to their benefit. Well, them and the people who want their votes.

The topic today is about the timing. We've waited multiple years and votes, what's the rush now? The push from the left is obviously because both PR and DC will clearly be voting with the democrats, so it's finally time!!!

It's just kind of silly to claim that Republicans will do things to make this THE LAST ELECTION EVERRR, when the leftists have clearly outlined a multi-pronged plan (statehood/supreme court/filibuster/importing illegals/Ministry of Truth/2A/jailing political enemies etc. etc.) that would do much more to end our 250 year democratic process than orange hitler will ever attempt.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

We can make the Electoral College more equitable by increasing the number of Representatives. We have stayed at 435 for over 100 years for no reason at all.

The smaller states felt they were losing their voice in the house. Well, they were. But that's what the Senate was for. There was also a concern about managing the size of the House, but representation is much more important than management, and several countries smaller than ours have larger governing bodies.

In 1911, when the House first expanded to 435 members, the US population was about 94 million. So 1 Congressman represented about 215,000 people....of course the voting age was 21, and women couldn't vote, so the Congressmen represented fewer than 100,000 voters.

Our population is now 334,000,000, so 1 Congressman represents well over 750,000 people. We have lost our voice in Congress. Your Congressman should be a member of your community; someone you know, or have at least have access to. Someone who is one of the people he represents.

The House should be expanded to over 1200 members. I think the number should be over 5,000, but, baby steps. 1200 would get representation back down to the level it was at in 1911, but I think Congress was too small even then.

More Congressmen means more electors per state. In theory, that should swing the electoral vote closer in line with the popular vote.

It would also make gerrymandering much more difficult and unpredictable, since people tend to move around a lot more these days. Lobbying would be much tougher. Compromise and consensus building would return. Third parties might have a better chance of growing if they could get a Congressional foothold and build a following.

The problem is, how do you get Congressmen to support weakening their own power? You cannot just appeal to their sense of patriotism and the original intent of the Constitutional Convention.

 

[thatsbaseball]

"Almost every Democrat in Congress supports abolishing the electoral college. Almost every blue state legislature has ratified the NPV compact."

Is this the same group that voted overwhelmingly against a bill that would require showing proof of citizenship to vote ?