Dems have won Popular Vote 5 of last 6 Pres elections...

[SInNYC]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

[krazen1211]

Trump won 7/10 of the largest states and 5/10 of the smallest states by population. His strength was of course with larger states.

You could remove the 2 EV each state gets for having 2 Senators. Trump still wins the Electoral College.

[Bidenworth2020]

Trump won 7/10 of the largest states and 5/10 of the smallest states by population. His strength was of course with larger states.

You could remove the 2 EV each state gets for having 2 Senators. Trump still wins the Electoral College.

You seem to be actively ignoring the fact that he won by pretty narrow margins in the big states he won. Sad!

[BudgieForce]

Trump won 7/10 of the largest states and 5/10 of the smallest states by population. His strength was of course with larger states.

You could remove the 2 EV each state gets for having 2 Senators. Trump still wins the Electoral College.

You seem to be actively ignoring the fact that he won by pretty narrow margins in the big states he won. Sad!

Krazen keeps posting these misleading anecdotes, getting kind of annoying.

[krazen1211]

Trump won 7/10 of the largest states and 5/10 of the smallest states by population. His strength was of course with larger states.

You could remove the 2 EV each state gets for having 2 Senators. Trump still wins the Electoral College.

You seem to be actively ignoring the fact that he won by pretty narrow margins in the big states he won. Sad!

Welcome to a first past the post system. Some people don't know how it works.

[Hammy]

One thing that bothers me if we keep having PV vs EV differences, and one that worried me even after 2000 (I was a hardcore Bushie at the time and even then I wrote a highschool paper speaking out against the EC for this reason) is the effect it can have on voters--if they see PV wins that don't translate into formal electoral victories, more people will feel their vote is meaningless and voter turnout (which is already pitiful) continues to decline.

[All Along The Watchtower]

As a voter residing in California I deeply resent my disenfranchisement.

[South Dakota Democrat]

With the missing Veep, Pence, Trump shouldnt win again

No idea what you're trying to say.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

With the missing Veep, Pence, Trump shouldnt win again

No idea what you're trying to say.

I think "missing Veep" is the latest Atlas meme.

Based on the fact that I've seen it twice, but on Planet Atlas two anecdotes = massive data trend with p=0.000000001.

[Zaybay]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

[South Dakota Democrat]

With the missing Veep, Pence, Trump shouldnt win again

No idea what you're trying to say.

I think "missing Veep" is the latest Atlas meme.

Based on the fact that I've seen it twice, but on Planet Atlas two anecdotes = massive data trend with p=0.000000001.

What does it mean, though?  That Pence won't be running mate again?

[South Dakota Democrat]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

With the missing Veep, Pence, Trump shouldnt win again

No idea what you're trying to say.

I think "missing Veep" is the latest Atlas meme.

Based on the fact that I've seen it twice, but on Planet Atlas two anecdotes = massive data trend with p=0.000000001.

What does it mean, though?  That Pence won't be running mate again?

Maybe? That, or Pence will simply fade into the background and stop being Trump's lapdog?

[Zaybay]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

No, I hate the Maine/Nebraska system, as its easily susceptible to gerrymandering. The Wyoming rule is that 1 elector is set to the current population of the smallest state, in this case, Wyoming, and the bar of the house is lifted. This negates most of the bias the EC has for small states, as larger states now have more EVs. This would be combined with proportion voting. For instance, if CA has 90 ECVs, due to the Wyoming rule, and Trump wins 33% of the vote, Trump would get 30 electors. Basically, its a way to have to have the vote close to the PV while not actually moving to the PV, a good compromise.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

No, I hate the Maine/Nebraska system, as its easily susceptible to gerrymandering. The Wyoming rule is that 1 elector is set to the current population of the smallest state, in this case, Wyoming, and the bar of the house is lifted. This negates most of the bias the EC has for small states, as larger states now have more EVs. This would be combined with proportion voting. For instance, if CA has 90 ECVs, due to the Wyoming rule, and Trump wins 33% of the vote, Trump would get 30 electors. Basically, its a way to have to have the vote close to the PV while not actually moving to the PV, a good compromise.

That is a ridicolously complicated system.
I'd be willing to back a reform that simply creates a pool of 100 EVs that goes to the PV winner, if that heads off any further reforms. Nothing else changes.

[Zaybay]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

No, I hate the Maine/Nebraska system, as its easily susceptible to gerrymandering. The Wyoming rule is that 1 elector is set to the current population of the smallest state, in this case, Wyoming, and the bar of the house is lifted. This negates most of the bias the EC has for small states, as larger states now have more EVs. This would be combined with proportion voting. For instance, if CA has 90 ECVs, due to the Wyoming rule, and Trump wins 33% of the vote, Trump would get 30 electors. Basically, its a way to have to have the vote close to the PV while not actually moving to the PV, a good compromise.

That is a ridicolously complicated system.
I'd be willing to back a reform that simply creates a pool of 100 EVs that goes to the PV winner, if that heads off any further reforms. Nothing else changes.

Not really..? The Wyoming rule applies to the house, and has broad support. It just means that if Wyoming has a population of 100,000, then that will be worth 1 seat in every state, rounding down.

And then you just use proportional voting. Really, the only change made to the EC is proportional voting, which, again, just give EVs proportional to the amount of PV you win in a state, like a primary. Its not that hard to implement.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

No, I hate the Maine/Nebraska system, as its easily susceptible to gerrymandering. The Wyoming rule is that 1 elector is set to the current population of the smallest state, in this case, Wyoming, and the bar of the house is lifted. This negates most of the bias the EC has for small states, as larger states now have more EVs. This would be combined with proportion voting. For instance, if CA has 90 ECVs, due to the Wyoming rule, and Trump wins 33% of the vote, Trump would get 30 electors. Basically, its a way to have to have the vote close to the PV while not actually moving to the PV, a good compromise.

That is a ridicolously complicated system.
I'd be willing to back a reform that simply creates a pool of 100 EVs that goes to the PV winner, if that heads off any further reforms. Nothing else changes.

Not really..? The Wyoming rule applies to the house, and has broad support. It just means that if Wyoming has a population of 100,000, then that will be worth 1 seat in every state, rounding down.

And then you just use proportional voting. Really, the only change made to the EC is proportional voting, which, again, just give EVs proportional to the amount of PV you win in a state, like a primary.

What issues do you have with a pool of 100 EVs going to the PV winner though?

[Zaybay]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

No, I hate the Maine/Nebraska system, as its easily susceptible to gerrymandering. The Wyoming rule is that 1 elector is set to the current population of the smallest state, in this case, Wyoming, and the bar of the house is lifted. This negates most of the bias the EC has for small states, as larger states now have more EVs. This would be combined with proportion voting. For instance, if CA has 90 ECVs, due to the Wyoming rule, and Trump wins 33% of the vote, Trump would get 30 electors. Basically, its a way to have to have the vote close to the PV while not actually moving to the PV, a good compromise.

That is a ridicolously complicated system.
I'd be willing to back a reform that simply creates a pool of 100 EVs that goes to the PV winner, if that heads off any further reforms. Nothing else changes.

Not really..? The Wyoming rule applies to the house, and has broad support. It just means that if Wyoming has a population of 100,000, then that will be worth 1 seat in every state, rounding down.

And then you just use proportional voting. Really, the only change made to the EC is proportional voting, which, again, just give EVs proportional to the amount of PV you win in a state, like a primary.

What issues do you have with a pool of 100 EVs going to the PV winner though?

No problem with that system, but I would rather get some house reform as well in the package, rather than just presidential reform.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Another way of looking at it is that the electoral college ultimately helps the minority party by giving it a strategy. Post 2012, that would be Republicans (at the presidential level); pre-2004 that would be Democrats. Although the EC hasn't been kind to Ds, Kerry could have gone the other way.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

Anyway, the EC is a terrible system that only really serves to make US elections more interesting. I would support either a PV, or a EC that follows the Wyoming rule and gives EVs proportionally. Both would fix the problem of the EC not really representing the PV

Do you mean Maine/Nebraska, instead of Wyoming?

No, I hate the Maine/Nebraska system, as its easily susceptible to gerrymandering. The Wyoming rule is that 1 elector is set to the current population of the smallest state, in this case, Wyoming, and the bar of the house is lifted. This negates most of the bias the EC has for small states, as larger states now have more EVs. This would be combined with proportion voting. For instance, if CA has 90 ECVs, due to the Wyoming rule, and Trump wins 33% of the vote, Trump would get 30 electors. Basically, its a way to have to have the vote close to the PV while not actually moving to the PV, a good compromise.

That is a ridicolously complicated system.
I'd be willing to back a reform that simply creates a pool of 100 EVs that goes to the PV winner, if that heads off any further reforms. Nothing else changes.

Not really..? The Wyoming rule applies to the house, and has broad support. It just means that if Wyoming has a population of 100,000, then that will be worth 1 seat in every state, rounding down.

And then you just use proportional voting. Really, the only change made to the EC is proportional voting, which, again, just give EVs proportional to the amount of PV you win in a state, like a primary.

What issues do you have with a pool of 100 EVs going to the PV winner though?

No problem with that system, but I would rather get some house reform as well in the package, rather than just presidential reform.

I agree that the house is too small. I think something around 650 seats would be good - 650 being the number of members in the British House of Commons.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

In the current EC system, there are a couple of battleground states in which you can shift the outcome through a small amount of meddling. With proportional allocation, you have a bunch of states in which a few individual votes could flip an electoral vote. So, while we're talking about nickel-and-diming EVs, in a close election that could make a difference.

Proportional EV is better than winner-take-all, but national popular vote is even better. The closest PV we've had in recent years is about 250,000 in 1960. It would take an insane amount of meddling to flip that many votes.

The best system would be national popular vote with instant runoff voting.

[The Mikado]

Wyoming Rule for Congressional Apportionment makes sense and would significantly increase the size of the House, and, frankly, no one would care if the exact number of Congressmen shifts from apportionment to apportionment except trivia nerds.

Under the 2010 apportionment, if the Wyoming rule were in effect, the House would be 545 (rather than 435), producing an Electoral College of 648 EVs (rather than the current 538).

Seat change numbers here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#In_the_current_House_(2010_Census)

Biggest changes are of course in the biggest states, with CA going to 66 reps rather than 53 and TX going to 45 reps rather than 36.

[krazen1211]

Wyoming Rule for Congressional Apportionment makes sense and would significantly increase the size of the House, and, frankly, no one would care if the exact number of Congressmen shifts from apportionment to apportionment except trivia nerds.

Under the 2010 apportionment, if the Wyoming rule were in effect, the House would be 545 (rather than 435), producing an Electoral College of 648 EVs (rather than the current 538).

Seat change numbers here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#In_the_current_House_(2010_Census)

Biggest changes are of course in the biggest states, with CA going to 66 reps rather than 53 and TX going to 45 reps rather than 36.

For the record Trump wins under this scheme as well.

[SInNYC]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

It seems reasonable to define small as 5 or less. In 2000, Ds won ME/VT/RI/DE/NM/HI, while Rs won NH/WV/ID/MT/ND/SD/NE/WY/NV/UT/AK, for a 11-6 R edge. In 2008 (best case for Ds), the edge was 9-8 R. Throwing out NE/ME doesn't change the balance either.

[Zaybay]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

It seems reasonable to define small as 5 or less. In 2000, Ds won ME/VT/RI/DE/NM/HI, while Rs won NH/WV/ID/MT/ND/SD/NE/WY/NV/UT/AK, for a 11-6 R edge. In 2008 (best case for Ds), the edge was 9-8 R. Throwing out NE/ME doesn't change the balance either.

I consider it 4 or less, 5-14 is medium, and 14 above is large.
In my case, in 2000, the Rs won 8 states while the Dems won 6. 2004, its 6R/7D and in 2008 the Dems won the same margin. It has been at this margin since. So, I guess I shouldnt have included 2000, but after that election, my point stands.

[eric82oslo]

There are two distinct characteristics: 1) the winner take all nature, and 2) the allocation. 2 helps small states which get way more votes than they should. 1 helps big states since the minority party wastes lots of votes.  Medium (and especially medium-large) states are helped somewhat by 1 but not really by 2.  From 1988 on, that means 2 helps Republicans and 1 helps Democrats. Pre-1984, the picture is cloudy.

Actually, in 2012, 2008, and 2004, and 2000, Democrats won more small states and big states than Rs. The R base is with middle sized states, TX, and the small states of the plains.

It seems reasonable to define small as 5 or less. In 2000, Ds won ME/VT/RI/DE/NM/HI, while Rs won NH/WV/ID/MT/ND/SD/NE/WY/NV/UT/AK, for a 11-6 R edge. In 2008 (best case for Ds), the edge was 9-8 R. Throwing out NE/ME doesn't change the balance either.

I consider it 4 or less, 5-14 is medium, and 14 above is large.
In my case, in 2000, the Rs won 8 states while the Dems won 6. 2004, its 6R/7D and in 2008 the Dems won the same margin. It has been at this margin since. So, I guess I shouldnt have included 2000, but after that election, my point stands.

The states Democrats win, like Hawaii, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island and New Hampshire are much more highly densed, yet having a small area. The "small" Republican states are actually gigantic like Alaska and Montana.