How would a NPV election change the state map?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 06:22:22 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  How would a NPV election change the state map?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How would a NPV election change the state map?  (Read 524 times)
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 28, 2017, 09:41:25 AM »

With campaign differences and all, what would happen to the winners of states in the case of an NPV election? Discuss.
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,076
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2017, 10:08:03 AM »

In the case of an NPV election, the "state winners" would be absolutely worthless and would probably only be used for statistical purposes. Campaigning would be different, low-population states like ND and VT would be totally ignored in favor of larger states like TX, CA, and NY. Medium-large states like VA, MI, PA, and MA would probably be targeted too. It would be interesting to see how the results would play out, as it wouldn't be totally worthless to campaign in a state that's safe for the other party (there's definitely untapped potential for a Republican in MA in places like Plymouth and Worcester counties; states like TX probably have untapped potential for a Democrat).
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2017, 11:07:59 AM »

In the case of an NPV election, the "state winners" would be absolutely worthless and would probably only be used for statistical purposes. Campaigning would be different, low-population states like ND and VT would be totally ignored in favor of larger states like TX, CA, and NY. Medium-large states like VA, MI, PA, and MA would probably be targeted too. It would be interesting to see how the results would play out, as it wouldn't be totally worthless to campaign in a state that's safe for the other party (there's definitely untapped potential for a Republican in MA in places like Plymouth and Worcester counties; states like TX probably have untapped potential for a Democrat).

Yeah, that's understood. That's why I asked the question. Tongue
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2017, 11:45:35 AM »

The West Coast would be much more heavily targeted. It pretty much gets ignored under the current system.

Candidates would still campaign heavily in big cities, but Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Denver would be replaced with New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

I don't know if any states would necessarily flip, although the rural Midwest would probably continue its trajectory towards the Republicans.

However, what we're forgetting is that the Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections still exist. If this is in place in 2020 (not happening I know) presidential candidates would probably spend a lot of time in North Carolina, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Georgia, Virginia, Maine if Collins retires, etc.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.