Proportional EV split for 1936 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 04, 2024, 02:29:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Proportional EV split for 1936 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Proportional EV split for 1936  (Read 1585 times)
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,216


« on: December 28, 2006, 11:01:54 PM »

Here's the split of votes, leaving out the at-large votes.

AL: 8 FDR, 1 Landon
AZ: 1 FDR
AR: 6 FDR, 1 Landon
CA: 14 FDR, 6 Landon
CO: 2 FDR, 2 Landon
CT: 3 FDR, 3 Landon
DE: 1 FDR
FL: 4 FDR, 1 Landon
GA: 9 FDR, 1 Landon
ID: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
IL: 16 FDR, 11 Landon
IN: 7 FDR, 5 Landon
IA: 5 FDR, 4 Landon
KS: 4 FDR, 3 Landon
KY: 5 FDR, 4 Landon
LA: 7 FDR, 1 Landon
ME: 2 Landon, 1 FDR
MD: 4 FDR, 2 Landon
MA: 8 FDR, 6 Landon, 1 Lemke
MI: 10 FDR, 6 Landon, 1 Lemke
MN: 6 FDR, 3 Landon
MS: 7 FDR
MO: 8 FDR, 5 Landon
MT: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
NE: 3 FDR, 2 Landon
NV: 1 FDR,
NH: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
NJ: 8 FDR, 6 Landon
NM: 1 FDR
NY: 27 FDR, 17 Landon, 1 Thomas
NC: 8 FDR, 3 Landon
ND: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
OH: 14 FDR, 9 Landon, 1 Lemke
OK: 6 FDR, 3 Landon
OR: 2 FDR, 1 Landon
PA: 19 FDR, 14 Landon, 1 Lemke
RI: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
SC: 6 FDR
SD: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
TN: 6 FDR, 3 Landon
TX: 18 FDR, 3 Landon
UT: 1 FDR, 1 Landon
VT: 1 Landon
VA: 6 FDR, 3 Landon
WA: 4 FDR, 2 Landon
WV: 4 FDR, 2 Landon
WI: 7 FDR, 3 Landon
WY: 1 FDR

Total: 284 FDR, 146 Landon, 4 Lemke, 1 Thomas

That's a 65/34 split, due to the South.

North: 199-129 FDR, 60/39 split in the EVs, 59/38 split in the popular vote
South: 85-17 FDR, 83/17 split in the EVs, 81/19 split in the popular vote

that'll happen when 23% of the Congress seats went to an area contributing 9% of the vote.

But yeah, with proportional EVs, we find that Landon only got really whupped, as opposed to being totally whupped.
Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,216


« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2007, 05:45:00 PM »

Using that same method for 1912:

(snip)

Wilson 291, TR 131, Taft 94, Debs 14, Chafin 1

House Seats only: Wilson 210, TR 111, Taft 96, Debs 17, Chafin 1

The differences in our lists

Alabama: Wilson 7, TR 2, Taft 1
Arkansas: Wilson 4, Taft 2, TR 1
Colorado: Wilson 2, TR 1, Taft 1
Georgia: Wilson 9, TR 2, Taft 1
Indiana: Wilson 6, TR 3, Taft 3, Debs 1
Iowa: Wilson 4, TR 4, Taft 3
Louisana: Wilson 6, TR 1, Debs 1
Maine: Wilson 2, TR 1, Taft 1
Maryland: Wilson 3, TR 2, Taft 1
Missouri: Wilson 7, Taft 5, TR 3, Debs 1
Texas: Wilson 13, TR 2, Taft 2, Debs 1
Virginia: Wilson 7, Taft 2, TR 1
Washington: TR 2 Wilson 1 Taft 1 Debs 1

One source of differences is probably due to my method.

Any candidate who gets half of the percentage needed for one vote gets votes counted for the distribution. The votes counted there are used as the total sum. Then the percentages come from dividing the votes by that total.

Then in cases where rounding everybody up creates too many votes then the percentage furthest from being rounded up is rounded down.

Virginia, 1912

Wilson: 6.67
Taft: 1.72
Roosevelt: 1.61

Since there's 10 votes and rounding up creates 11 votes, then only Wilson and Taft get rounded up and Roosevelt is rounded down.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.