Explaining Republican Electoral Problem (Using Purely 2012 Election)

[ElectionsGuy]

Using the 2012 election results and uniform swing, I can show you why republican have a "structural" disadvantage when it comes to winning the electoral college in some cases.

In a tied election, here's how we start out:

Democrat: 272
Republican: 253
Undecided: 13

Virginia is very close in a Florida 2000 fashion, but the democrats still have 272 electoral votes. Republicans would need to win by at least 1.5% (!) to win the electoral college, and successfully get their next state after Virginia, in this case Pennsylvania or Colorado.

Republican Win by 1:

Republican: 266
Democrat: 272

As I've said before, democrats have many more "lean" states than republicans do, and republicans have many more "safe" states than democrats do. I realize that swing states are swing states, but they all lean left to a degree (NH, IA, WI, CO, PA all lean left despite being "toss-ups"). The only swing states in the 2012 election that don't lean democratic are NC, OH, and VA.

Republican Win by 2:

Republican: 303
Democrat: 235

NH, IA, CO, and PA are all between 1-2 points more D than the country (as of 2012), so republicans see a major improvement from their 1 point win in the electoral college. So the republicans problem only exists when the election has less than a 2% margin of victory for them.

Democrats on the other hand can get their electoral votes quickly with small wins, but slows down once they get comfortable wins, for example:

Democrat Win by 1:

Democrat: 303
Republican: 235



Democrats can get over 300 while winning by 1 point, and yet republicans can win by 1 and lose the electoral college. This is the result of many swing states (NH, IA, CO, PA, NV as I've noted) being only slightly left of the popular vote, so the swing states essential for winning a presidential election are slightly more favorable towards democrats, this is the ultimate reason why republicans have a structural disadvantage.

Democrat Win by 10:

Democrat: 347
Republican: 191

Simply because Georgia, Arizona, and all the other Likely R states are so far away from North Carolina PVI wise, democrats winning by 10 only gets them 347 electoral votes. Where a republican would get 360 electoral votes and far more states.

Pat yourself on the back if you read all that. Feel free to make your own maps or explanations for this as well.

[ElectionsGuy]

The Republicans aren't at an unfair structural disadvantage though; Democrats have lost EVs in the last two census cycles, and Republicans won landslides before that. 2000/2004 highlighted a Democratic disadvantage in the electoral college. It's just that Obama magically brought Virginia and Colorado from Likely R to Lean D without them going through the pure tossup phase of Florida and Ohio, and he also brought Iowa and New Hampshire from pure toss-up to Lean D and Nevada and New Mexico from pure toss-up to Likely D. That's something the Democrats achieved, not a disadvantage the Republicans were given. It remains to be seen if Democrats will keep those states in their coalition, but if they do, you are right in that Republicans are at a major disadvantage (but not by any means an unfair one) in the electoral college. Remember that Democrats still support abolishing the electoral college by a larger margin than Republicans do.

Yep, that's what created this, and this "structural" disadvantage has only been present since 2008. Again it seems like another one of those "special things" with Obama. It'll be interesting to see if this continues.

That's a good thing, but it's of course not going to happen.

[ElectionsGuy]

Universal swing doesn't exist in real life.

Yes, I realize that, but generally do you think elections would be somewhere around/near the maps posted above?

[ElectionsGuy]

You guys are missing it, things always swing back and forth every 8 years or so.  Remember the 90's when Bill Clinton won the popular vote twice.  Then remember just 8 years later when Gore won the popular vote.  Then just 8 years after that it swung back to Obama winning the popular vote again.  Current polling shows that Hillary could very well win in 2016, which shows a swing back to Hillary who was Obama's opponent in 2008.  This shows that things are extremely close and have been for decades. 

Besides, the democratic party is just based in big cities and their near in suburbs.  It's not like the Philly, DC, Denver, or Orlando suburbs are located in swing states. 

Plus as the 2012 elections proved to us, things swing back and forth... see, e.g., the massive swing in North Carolina and Indiana from Obama to Romney.  Indeed, Democrats have only won the same states that constitute only about 250 electoral votes 6 elections in a row now... You need a whole 20 more to win the White House in case you were wondering (I did the math myself on a TI-83 no less).

Nor are demographics on democrats side.  Minorities don't vote and any gains seen by democrats in minority votes will automatically and inherently be counteracted by an increase in white votes for Republicans... this is a scientifically proven fact. 

So stop whigging out, it's not like a major political party has every gone extinct, things happen in cycles... always, that's the definition of a cycle.

Yours truly,

Barfbag

Please stop with this stupid rhetoric.

[ElectionsGuy]

Why do you hate free speech?  Have you rebuked the dozens if not hundreds of posts Barfbag has made calling people "idiots," "stupid," etc.?

Oh and, thanks for thinking half the parodies are about you.  Self absorbed much?

Because I say "stop with rhetoric" makes me hate free speech.... OK then. I don't actually recall barfbag calling people idiots or stupid, some of his logic may be very wrong and most of us may not agree with it, but for the most part of what I've observed he's very polite to me and people on this forum, He does not call people "stupid" or "idiots" but he does call them biased, partisan, etc. In fact he seems to be much more polite than you.

The reason I thought they were about me is because of the constant disagreements and rudeness we've experienced with each other. How in the world does that make me self absorbed? I've always disliked selfish people who think only for themselves and always will. I try to respect all people on this forum whether I disagree with them or not, I add people do my buddy list that I disagree or agree with. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we can't be friends/can't get along. Because of your mock threads and rudeness when it comes to posting, you've almost lost the respect I have for 95% of posters here. You still have a chance of gaining that respect back, but if you want to, you better show some kindness and politeness towards other posters you disagree with.