Can someone win all 538 EVs in a fair election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 07:38:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Can someone win all 538 EVs in a fair election?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Can they? If so what party
#1
Yes/D		  
#2
Yes/R		  
#3
Yes/Third Party		  
#4
No		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 64

Author Topic: Can someone win all 538 EVs in a fair election?  (Read 8837 times)
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,227


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 09, 2005, 09:36:33 AM »
Option 3 for me.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2005, 10:15:10 AM »
George Washington would have to come back to life and run again. Otherwise, no.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2005, 10:19:43 AM »
George Washington would likely be ripped to shreds from all sides in the current political alignment.
Technically yes/either, but it's highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime - especially as there's no reason to believe the number of EV's will remain at 538 throughout our lifetime.
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2005, 11:33:15 AM »
Democrats could, but Republicans are incapable of winning DC.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,082
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2005, 11:36:16 AM »
Quote from: AFCJ KEmperor on February 09, 2005, 11:33:15 AM
Democrats could, but Republicans are incapable of winning DC.

Agreed, but only a Mormon Democrat could win Utah.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2005, 02:40:24 PM »
Quote from: Joe Republic on February 09, 2005, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: AFCJ KEmperor on February 09, 2005, 11:33:15 AM
Democrats could, but Republicans are incapable of winning DC.

Agreed, but only a Mormon Democrat could win Utah.
Jim Matheson?
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,082
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2005, 04:28:00 PM »
Quote from: Senator Bono on February 09, 2005, 02:40:24 PM
Quote from: Joe Republic on February 09, 2005, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: AFCJ KEmperor on February 09, 2005, 11:33:15 AM
Democrats could, but Republicans are incapable of winning DC.

Agreed, but only a Mormon Democrat could win Utah.
Jim Matheson?

Perhaps, but I'd say Harry Reid, who is in a better position.  Obviously, we'd have to assume that the Republican nominee is a total jackass, and a third-party candidate doesn't try and attack Reid from the left.
Logged
BobOMac2k2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 280


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2005, 04:39:49 PM »
And the candidates would most likely have to be fromt he same state.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2005, 04:44:09 PM »
Not necessarily...the loser would just have to be from a state that is usually associated with the other party, or the landslide huge.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,082
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2005, 04:50:18 PM »
Quote from: Erc on February 09, 2005, 04:44:09 PM
Not necessarily...the loser would just have to be from a state that is usually associated with the other party, or the landslide huge.

A lot like George McGovern, for both those reasons.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2005, 04:52:42 PM »
Yes / Democrat
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2005, 06:38:02 PM »
No.  Even if they did win all the states, as near imposability for either party, one or more of the electors would be faithless.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2005, 08:46:24 PM »
No.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2005, 10:46:19 PM »
Had the election been held in Nov 2001, Bush would have come close, probably losing only D.C.

It would take another national tragedy (such as 9/11) that rallies the people to their President (regardless of party), to enable a candidate to win every state.  So, in theory, either a Republican or Democrat could pull it off.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2005, 10:54:52 PM »
Quote from: Notre Dame rules! on February 09, 2005, 10:46:19 PM
Had the election been held in Nov 2001, Bush would have come close, probably losing only D.C.

Yeah, his 91% approval rating at that time would have really produced a landslide map...hell, Nixon's 50-something % in 1972 produced 49 states + 24% in DC...
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2005, 11:57:12 PM »
Probably not, at least not in the current political climate.

I can't see a Republican winning 538 EV's, since they'd have to win D.C.

I also can't see the Dems winning the Mormon triangle (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah) or the Deep South for that matter. Dems would have to win over 70% nationally to carry Utah.

Also note that Dems would also have to win NE-3 (over 70% GOP) to carry all 538 EV's.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,033
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2005, 11:59:51 PM »
Quote from: nclib on February 09, 2005, 11:57:12 PM
I also can't see the Dems winning the Mormon triangle (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah) or the Deep South for that matter. Dems would have to win over 70% nationally to carry Utah.

Wyoming isn't very Mormon. It's conservative for different reasons.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2005, 02:46:50 PM »
Idaho-Utah comrpise of the Mormon twins..
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2005, 03:28:10 PM »
Only 26.63% of Idaho is Mormon or belong to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Although it has the second largest Mormon population outside of Utah Mormons in Idaho do not comprise a majority of the population. Wyoming is the only other state in which over 10% of the population is Mormon, 10.10%. To call these two states part of the Mormon Triangle would be like calling Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts the Catholic Triangle, or Catholic Trio. It doesn't really describe the demographics of each individual state.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2005, 03:32:01 PM »
Quote from: Secretary King on February 09, 2005, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: Notre Dame rules! on February 09, 2005, 10:46:19 PM
Had the election been held in Nov 2001, Bush would have come close, probably losing only D.C.

Yeah, his 91% approval rating at that time would have really produced a landslide map...hell, Nixon's 50-something % in 1972 produced 49 states + 24% in DC...

Actually, Nixon got 61%.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2005, 05:58:18 PM »
Quote from: Philip on February 10, 2005, 03:32:01 PM
Quote from: Secretary King on February 09, 2005, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: Notre Dame rules! on February 09, 2005, 10:46:19 PM
Had the election been held in Nov 2001, Bush would have come close, probably losing only D.C.

Yeah, his 91% approval rating at that time would have really produced a landslide map...hell, Nixon's 50-something % in 1972 produced 49 states + 24% in DC...

Actually, Nixon got 61%.

I think he meant his approval rating was in the fifties.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2005, 07:04:37 PM »
Slap on a 3 EV military terroritory that could be won by a Republican  like Guam or Midway as a state, and the GOP could very well win 538/541 EVs...
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2005, 04:20:52 PM »
Yes, if you move half of DC's population to Canada, or maybe distribute them evenly amongst the 50 states.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2005, 06:00:32 PM »
« Edited: February 11, 2005, 06:04:39 PM by Senator Gabu, PPT »
Quote from: DanielX on February 11, 2005, 04:20:52 PM
Yes, if you move half of DC's population to Canada, or maybe distribute them evenly amongst the 50 states.

Actually, even if all of the ones you moved were hardcore Democrats, DC would still be solid Democrat.  Observe:

Suppose that 85 out of 100 people in DC vote Democrat and that 15 out of 100 people vote Republican (pretty standard numbers).  Taking away 50 of the 85 Democratic voters results in 35 out of 50 people voting Democrat and 15 out of 50 people voting Republican, which translates to 70 out of 100 people voting Democrat and 30 out of 100 people voting Republican.

Therefore, the results would still be 70% Dem - 30% GOP.

It's actually not very hard to show that you'd need to remove a massive 82.4% of the Democratic voters in DC to create a tie.
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2005, 06:48:42 PM »
Yes, R
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
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 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.