How would the electoral college be if the 435 representative rule never happened

[morgankingsley]

What would each decades electoral map look like if they never created the 435 rule in 1909 or something? What would the states be like with every decade from 1910 on

So 1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010 and so on

I want to know so I can use these maps for my timeline. I just don't want to do improper math lol so I need some help. I will shout you guys out in a later post on my timeline if you guys help

[Progressive Pessimist]

I have often wondered this as well. I suck at math though and I don't think I have the patience to do all the calculations. I look forward to seeing what other posters come up with though. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting by the way.

[morgankingsley]

Well I would assume that it would be relatively consistent with the population growth rate. 1900-1910 had a 21 percent growth according to Wikipedia. I did the math and 531 - 447 is 84 and 84 is 18 percent of 447.

I will do 1920 for starters. 1910-1920 caused a 15 percent increase. I assume the electoral college would go up two to three percent less than that, so say 13 percent is fair? A 13 percent increase would be 69.94 electoral votes, rounded up to 70. That would be 601 electoral votes for 1924 and 1928.

[morgankingsley]

I guess I will do the number part, although I will need help for the actual maps. I will do the numbers though and you guys can make the maps from the numbers if you choose to do so. If not, I will do one map at  time for each decade.

1920-1930 saw a 13.7 percent increase, basically a 14 percent increase. Since 1920 has 601 electoral votes, each percent is virtually 6 more votes. I would say 12 percent would suffice, giving 673 electoral votes in 1932, 1936 and 1940

[morgankingsley]

In 1930-1940, there was a mere 7.3 percent increase, which is basically 7 percent rounded down. Since this is under ten percent, I will do the full addition instead of cutting it one or two percent short. 7 percent of 673 is 47 when rounded down. 673 plus 47 is 720. So in 1944 and 1948 there are 720 electoral votes

[morgankingsley]

With a 14.5 percent increase in population between 1940-1950, a 12 percent increase in electoral votes would seem fine. Going by that, this would make a 86 rounded down increase in electoral votes, which added up would be 806 electoral votes for the 1952, 1956, and 1960 elections.

[morgankingsley]

A outstanding 18.5 percent increase happened between 1950-1960, and I think a 15 percent gain on electoral votes would be close to what the trend would be like if the rule was never placed in for 435. That is 121 electoral votes. Add those to the 806 already in, we now have 927 electoral votes for 1964 and 1968

[morgankingsley]

With a 13.4 percent increase of population from 1960-1970, I think that 11 percent would probably be the amount that congress would increase the electoral votes by to have it still be somewhat proportional. That is 102 electoral votes, which brings the 1972, 1976, and 1980 electoral votes to 1029 electoral votes. We are now in the four digit numbers.

[morgankingsley]

A 11.4 percent increase happened in 1970-1980. This means that a ten percent increase of electoral votes would have been likely. This would be 103 more electoral votes than before. Which would place the total amount at 1132 in the 1984 and 1988 elections.

[morgankingsley]

Due to only a 9.8 percent increase between 1980 to 1990, I am just rounding up to an even ten percent once again. A ten percent gain brings it up to 1246 electoral votes in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 election.

[morgankingsley]

In the 2000 census, there was a 13.4 percent gain. I rounded that down to 11 percent. A 11 percent gain from the 1246 electoral votes would now be 1383 electoral votes up for grabs.

[morgankingsley]

As a result of a 9.7 percent increase in 2000-2010, I will round up to ten percent, which would be 138 extra seats out of 1383. This brings the electoral college all the way up to 1521 electoral votes nearly 1000 more than what we have right now

[morgankingsley]

Now we are on the final number one. The 2020 numbers. There is a projected 7.7 percent increase. Round that up to 8 percent. That would be 122 electoral votes extra, with the 2020 map being 1643 electoral votes in total. Now with all these done, I will have a post for each individual decades map for you all I will work on.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've been reading these. Very intriguing. I look forward to seeing those maps.

[morgankingsley]

I've been reading these. Very intriguing. I look forward to seeing those maps.

I do think that if we wanted a proportional electoral college, this should have been how things happened. Yes it would require a REALLY large chamber for meetings, but if that is the price we have to pay for true proper representation and the closest thing the electoral college can give us to a democracy, then so be it

[morgankingsley]

1924 and 1928

Due to slight rounding differences, we have 607 here instead of 601

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Al Gore would have won.

[morgankingsley]

Al Gore would have won.

Do you have a map to show it? I have seven decades to go before I reach 1992 , 1996, and 2000 so if you want to show it ahead of time, go ahead

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Al Gore would have won.

Do you have a map to show it? I have seven decades to go before I reach 1992 , 1996, and 2000 so if you want to show it ahead of time, go ahead

I have '92-'00 at 911 districts, which Gore wins 513-461.

[Thomas D]

Here is my map 2000 for 1146 districts.  It's not exactly 1146 due to rounding.

 

I can't figure out how to fix ME & NE.    ME has 7.  NE has 10.

Gore 633

Bush 616

[morgankingsley]

Wow that is crazy. I have a feeling Oregon, not Florida, is the tipping state in this election universe

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The larger the house the more reflective of the popular vote it is.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Damn, now i'm tempted to make possible district maps for the most recent census... I already did the 1000 districts (but i'm too lazy to post California and onwards) which is kinda close to what we have here.

[wxtransit]

I've been reading these. Very intriguing. I look forward to seeing those maps.

I do think that if we wanted a proportional electoral college, this should have been how things happened. Yes it would require a REALLY large chamber for meetings, but if that is the price we have to pay for true proper representation and the closest thing the electoral college can give us to a democracy, then so be it

What if we just disconnected the number of Representatives/Senators from the EC and allowed it to grow at a rate unrelated to the number of people in Congress?

[StateBoiler]

The larger the house the more reflective of the popular vote it is.

In theory. What you're doing is you're further negating the "plus 2" of the Senators. If you wanted to drive it even closer to the popular vote, you'd take the current Electoral College and do a "minus 2" from every state. Not a lot of people would like that. You'd see the 3 electoral vote states go from being 1.11% of a majority required to win to 0.46%.

The worst thing about the current Electoral College as far as making it less reflective of the popular vote is it's "winner take all" in 48 of the 50 states. If you win California by 1 vote or by 4 million votes, doesn't matter, you're still 20% of the way toward a win either way. If you want to closer reflect the popular vote, let's ditch winner take all.