Hot take - I hate the Maine Rule

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

NEB AND GA aren't tilt D in an R Environment if the Election were held today Abrams would lose to Kemp and WARNOCK would be heading towards a Runoff

Biden is at 46/52 Approvals in that scenario Abrams would lose to Kemp

Wait til Traggy polls GA again Warnock won't be up six pts all the polls had Warnock and Ossoff leading by six and Traggy had Gf A very close and they both underperform the polls and they promised 2J checks

If DeSantis not Trump is the Nominee he would win GA, FL

[beaver2.0]

I agree.  The idea of having some local say is nice, but I don't see how it could be done fairly with gerrymandering as it is.  Allocating electoral votes proportionally makes sense to me as it retains the electoral college while giving members of the minority party a say in places like California, Texas, or Illinois where their votes aren't particularly important.

[Badger]

Just a reminder that the Maine rule would have elected Mitt Romney over Obama in 2012 despite an overwhelming popular vowelming popular vote and  Is "normal" electoral college victory, and worst still directly in stills still currently rampant Jerry mandering into I'm going into the presidential election process it Jesse as well as the house election process. A gargantionally terrible rule. Fortunately, it is currently limited to affecting pretty much only 2 swing districts in the country which sort of balance each other out.

Adopting the adopting the maine rule is just a horrible horrible idea Unless one is an adherent of the hakish "I don't care about democracy, I want republicans to keep democrats out of office!" mindset.  For that matter, the electoral college itself isn't much better. And don't give me that "small States" is" advantage. Realistically the only small States in the country that that get any attention under the electoral college are New Hampshire and perhaps Nevada And Iowa. Beyond that pretty much every small state in the country is ignored.

[CentristRepublican]

If every state used this rule in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won 274 electoral votes and thus the election, despite losing the popular vote by 5 million votes.

Maine and Nebraska can get away with using it because they aren't gerrymandered, but applied to most other states and it makes an already terrible electoral system much, much worse.

Also because they have very few districts. 2008, 2016 and 2020 were anomolies because they are the only times districts in NE (which has 3 districts) or ME (which has just 2; by definition at most one electoral vote can go to the candidate who loses the state) have given electoral votes to the candidate who lost their state. The system would never be implemented in larger states unless the party in power usually loses the state in presidential elections, because if they usually win the state in presidential elections, they'll just be sacrificing electoral votes for pretty much no reason. The GOP might do it in NH (just two districts) since they rarely win presidentially but can quite plausibly win NH01, especially if they pass their lightly gerrymandered map. The GOP might also do it in GA though they shouldn't since it could really backfire.

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

1992 would’ve gone to the House. I don’t think 1996 would have. Not sure about 2000 and 2016. For 2016, McMullin would’ve gotten a vote or two out of Utah; Johnson would probably get a few from the bigger states and possibly NM, depending on how you allocate them. I think Stein might eke one out of California.

I’m not sure what this method is called (though I’m sure it has a name):

Divide 100 by whatever number of electoral votes the state has; that’s the threshold and is used to allocate all but the last vote by giving every candidate that surpassed that threshold the respective number of EVs. The last one would then go to the person that has the most votes out of the last say 20% in New Mexico. Johnson would snag that one.

New Mexico, 2016:

Hillary Clinton: 48.26%
Donald Trump: 40.04%
Gary Johnson: 9.34%
(Others): 2.36%

So, the threshold is 20%. Clinton and Trump each get 2 electoral votes. Take away that 80% and you get:

Gary Johnson: 9.34%
Hillary Clinton: 8.26%
(Others): 2.36%
Donald Trump: 0.04%

Gary Johnson, having the plurality of the remaining 20%, wins an electoral vote.

Don’t really feel like going through the rest of the states, but have at it. I’m also pretty sure that someone here has done these sorts of calculations before.

Because this is more fun than I thought, enjoy some cursed results:

2016:
Clinton: 261
Trump: 261
Johnson: 14
Stein: 1
McMullin: 1

2000:
Bush: 263
Gore: 262
Nader: 13

I’ll probably continue. I think I’ll do 1924 next.

[TheReckoning]

A better question is why don’t courts regularly strike down gerrymandered districts.

[beaver2.0]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

1992 would’ve gone to the House. I don’t think 1996 would have. Not sure about 2000 and 2016. For 2016, McMullin would’ve gotten a vote or two out of Utah; Johnson would probably get a few from the bigger states and possibly NM, depending on how you allocate them. I think Stein might eke one out of California.

I’m not sure what this method is called (though I’m sure it has a name):

Divide 100 by whatever number of electoral votes the state has; that’s the threshold and is used to allocate all but the last vote by giving every candidate that surpassed that threshold the respective number of EVs. The last one would then go to the person that has the most votes out of the last say 20% in New Mexico. Johnson would snag that one.

New Mexico, 2016:

Hillary Clinton: 48.26%
Donald Trump: 40.04%
Gary Johnson: 9.34%
(Others): 2.36%

So, the threshold is 20%. Clinton and Trump each get 2 electoral votes. Take away that 80% and you get:

Gary Johnson: 9.34%
Hillary Clinton: 8.26%
(Others): 2.36%
Donald Trump: 0.04%

Gary Johnson, having the plurality of the remaining 20%, wins an electoral vote.

Don’t really feel like going through the rest of the states, but have at it. I’m also pretty sure that someone here has done these sorts of calculations before.

Because this is more fun than I thought, enjoy some cursed results:

2016:
Clinton: 261
Trump: 261
Johnson: 14
Stein: 1
McMullin: 1

2000:
Bush: 263
Gore: 262
Nader: 13

I’ll probably continue. I think I’ll do 1924 next.

Do you have a breakdown by state on this?

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

1992 would’ve gone to the House. I don’t think 1996 would have. Not sure about 2000 and 2016. For 2016, McMullin would’ve gotten a vote or two out of Utah; Johnson would probably get a few from the bigger states and possibly NM, depending on how you allocate them. I think Stein might eke one out of California.

I’m not sure what this method is called (though I’m sure it has a name):

Divide 100 by whatever number of electoral votes the state has; that’s the threshold and is used to allocate all but the last vote by giving every candidate that surpassed that threshold the respective number of EVs. The last one would then go to the person that has the most votes out of the last say 20% in New Mexico. Johnson would snag that one.

New Mexico, 2016:

Hillary Clinton: 48.26%
Donald Trump: 40.04%
Gary Johnson: 9.34%
(Others): 2.36%

So, the threshold is 20%. Clinton and Trump each get 2 electoral votes. Take away that 80% and you get:

Gary Johnson: 9.34%
Hillary Clinton: 8.26%
(Others): 2.36%
Donald Trump: 0.04%

Gary Johnson, having the plurality of the remaining 20%, wins an electoral vote.

Don’t really feel like going through the rest of the states, but have at it. I’m also pretty sure that someone here has done these sorts of calculations before.

Because this is more fun than I thought, enjoy some cursed results:

2016:
Clinton: 261
Trump: 261
Johnson: 14
Stein: 1
McMullin: 1

2000:
Bush: 263
Gore: 262
Nader: 13

I’ll probably continue. I think I’ll do 1924 next.

Do you have a breakdown by state on this?

2016:


2000:


1924 is coming out really weirdly. Need to check and make sure I didn’t do anything wrong. Davis is doing shockingly well and Coolidge doesn’t have a majority.

[VBM]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

I think that you have a warped view of politics. It’s supposed to be boring. When the politics are boring, that’s usually an indication that society is doing well

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

I think that you have a warped view of politics. It’s supposed to be boring. When the politics are boring, that’s usually an indication that society is doing well

Boring is when upper middle class college educated white suburbanites are doing well. The internationalist, neoliberal status quo needs to die a quick death for everyone else to have a fighting chance. I’m excited that that should happen quite soon.

[VBM]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

I think that you have a warped view of politics. It’s supposed to be boring. When the politics are boring, that’s usually an indication that society is doing well

Boring is when upper middle class college educated white suburbanites are doing well. The internationalist, neoliberal status quo needs to die a quick death for everyone else to have a fighting chance. I’m excited that that should happen quite soon.

And how is maintaining the Electoral College gonna help us get rid of the internationalist neoliberal status quo?

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

I think that you have a warped view of politics. It’s supposed to be boring. When the politics are boring, that’s usually an indication that society is doing well

Boring is when upper middle class college educated white suburbanites are doing well. The internationalist, neoliberal status quo needs to die a quick death for everyone else to have a fighting chance. I’m excited that that should happen quite soon.

And how is maintaining the Electoral College gonna help us get rid of the internationalist neoliberal status quo?

Winner takes all makes it easier for outsiders to win. Proportional representation is why it’s harder for outsider candidates to win in the Dem primaries than it is in the GOP primaries.

[VBM]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

I think that you have a warped view of politics. It’s supposed to be boring. When the politics are boring, that’s usually an indication that society is doing well

Boring is when upper middle class college educated white suburbanites are doing well. The internationalist, neoliberal status quo needs to die a quick death for everyone else to have a fighting chance. I’m excited that that should happen quite soon.

And how is maintaining the Electoral College gonna help us get rid of the internationalist neoliberal status quo?

Winner takes all makes it easier for outsiders to win. Proportional representation is why it’s harder for outsider candidates to win in the Dem primaries than it is in the GOP primaries.

I say let the people get what they want. If they vote for neoliberals, so be it. We just have to educate them better on the failures of neoliberalism

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

I think that you have a warped view of politics. It’s supposed to be boring. When the politics are boring, that’s usually an indication that society is doing well

Boring is when upper middle class college educated white suburbanites are doing well. The internationalist, neoliberal status quo needs to die a quick death for everyone else to have a fighting chance. I’m excited that that should happen quite soon.

And how is maintaining the Electoral College gonna help us get rid of the internationalist neoliberal status quo?

Winner takes all makes it easier for outsiders to win. Proportional representation is why it’s harder for outsider candidates to win in the Dem primaries than it is in the GOP primaries.

I say let the people get what they want. If they vote for neoliberals, so be it. We just have to educate them better on the failures of neoliberalism

We don’t have a fair primary process, so 95% of the time it’s neoliberal vs neoliberal. The 5% of the time it’s someone slightly less neoliberal (need it be Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard), the uniparty kneecaps them.

Why do you think they only stopped BLM when they invaded the gated communities in the suburbs? We need a multiracial working and lower middle class alliance to rise up against our broken institutions and usher in a new era of greatness - and that can only be achieved through chaos.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

A better question is why don’t courts regularly strike down gerrymandered districts.

Partisanship within the judicial branch, frequently.

[beaver2.0]

If the electoral votes were distributed proportionally - all of each state's votes, not just the House-equivalent ones with the two Senate-equivalents going to the statewide winner - then at that point what would be the remaining point of keeping the electoral college?

1992 would’ve gone to the House. I don’t think 1996 would have. Not sure about 2000 and 2016. For 2016, McMullin would’ve gotten a vote or two out of Utah; Johnson would probably get a few from the bigger states and possibly NM, depending on how you allocate them. I think Stein might eke one out of California.

I’m not sure what this method is called (though I’m sure it has a name):

Divide 100 by whatever number of electoral votes the state has; that’s the threshold and is used to allocate all but the last vote by giving every candidate that surpassed that threshold the respective number of EVs. The last one would then go to the person that has the most votes out of the last say 20% in New Mexico. Johnson would snag that one.

New Mexico, 2016:

Hillary Clinton: 48.26%
Donald Trump: 40.04%
Gary Johnson: 9.34%
(Others): 2.36%

So, the threshold is 20%. Clinton and Trump each get 2 electoral votes. Take away that 80% and you get:

Gary Johnson: 9.34%
Hillary Clinton: 8.26%
(Others): 2.36%
Donald Trump: 0.04%

Gary Johnson, having the plurality of the remaining 20%, wins an electoral vote.

Don’t really feel like going through the rest of the states, but have at it. I’m also pretty sure that someone here has done these sorts of calculations before.

Because this is more fun than I thought, enjoy some cursed results:

2016:
Clinton: 261
Trump: 261
Johnson: 14
Stein: 1
McMullin: 1

2000:
Bush: 263
Gore: 262
Nader: 13

I’ll probably continue. I think I’ll do 1924 next.

Do you have a breakdown by state on this?

2016:


2000:


1924 is coming out really weirdly. Need to check and make sure I didn’t do anything wrong. Davis is doing shockingly well and Coolidge doesn’t have a majority.

Thanks.  I really should've realized the Stein vote was coming from California.

[TimeUnit2027]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

As long as we have standardized national election laws this would work fine, I'm sure. I like the idea of an electoral college though. Makes things more interesting.

This plus the risk of a plurality victory for a crazy person in a 3+ way race from winning the South or Northeast near unanimously is enough to make me mildly favor the EC.

The EC with proportional allocation and a normal 218-to-win US House vote in January if no one has a majority in November would be better than an NPV system without a runoff.

I can see this being a concern in the Jim Crow era, but no one is winning any region "near unanimously" in the twenty-first century. A three person race is also not happening.

Well DC from first level subdivisions is most close to being unanimous thing right now. 90% for Dems guaranteed always.-but it is not really much people.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I don't like it either.

I'm surprised the gerrymandered Republican majority in Wisconsin hasn't tried to institute the rule for their state yet.  It's a blue state, but 6/8 representatives are Republican.  Imagine if they could have taken their 10 electoral votes and split them 6-4 for Trump in 2020.

And yes I agree it makes the maps ugly and makes it hard to compare maps year over year.  Fortunately for now it's just Nebraska and Maine which are pretty solidly red and blue, respectively.  I'm surprised periodic GOP rule of blue states hasn't resulted in more attempts to try and destroy that state's electoral impact by giving all Republican-voting congressional districts to the Republican presidential candidate.

[Democrats Hate Leftists More Than Predators]

I don't like it either.

I'm surprised the gerrymandered Republican majority in Wisconsin hasn't tried to institute the rule for their state yet.  It's a blue state, but 6/8 representatives are Republican.  Imagine if they could have taken their 10 electoral votes and split them 6-4 for Trump in 2020.

And yes I agree it makes the maps ugly and makes it hard to compare maps year over year.  Fortunately for now it's just Nebraska and Maine which are pretty solidly red and blue, respectively.  I'm surprised periodic GOP rule of blue states hasn't resulted in more attempts to try and destroy that state's electoral impact by giving all Republican-voting congressional districts to the Republican presidential candidate.

I know they tried that here, but for whatever reason it didn't make it out of committee. Maybe Sununu opposed that too.

I think that was the end-game - gerrymander one district to be GOP and have a solid "foothold" in the state forever. Honestly with how weak Leavitt was I wouldn't be surprised if Pappas won the gerrymandered version of NH-1 that Sununu shot down.

[emailking]

Blast from the past on my most recced post, now likely to gain new recs.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't like it either.

I'm surprised the gerrymandered Republican majority in Wisconsin hasn't tried to institute the rule for their state yet.  It's a blue state, but 6/8 representatives are Republican.  Imagine if they could have taken their 10 electoral votes and split them 6-4 for Trump in 2020.

And yes I agree it makes the maps ugly and makes it hard to compare maps year over year.  Fortunately for now it's just Nebraska and Maine which are pretty solidly red and blue, respectively.  I'm surprised periodic GOP rule of blue states hasn't resulted in more attempts to try and destroy that state's electoral impact by giving all Republican-voting congressional districts to the Republican presidential candidate.

The big chance they had was after 2010 and 2014.  Swing state legislatures generally aren't right leaning enough to make this viable anymoroe.   Only places it could still reasonably be done are GA and maybe VA if they sweep this fall.  However, Dems are now very good at ballot initiatives and could retaliate by putting EV-by-CD up for a vote in OH and FL.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

It's fine for states to divide their electoral votes, proportional allocation sounds good actually. The Maine rule isn't that though. Without drastic change to the redistricting process, it just enables politicians to rig presidential elections for their party. That takes it further away from the ideal of the outcome of the presidential election representing the will of the people.

Yeah, a constitutional amendment forcing all states to award their EVs proportionally to the top two candidates would probably be the simplest way to solve the bias in the Electoral College without a massive overhaul of the electoral process.

[Neocon Dem]

Makes maps look really ugly. It was cool seeing a republican win ME-02 but honestly what’s the point. That and NE-02 cancel out anyway nowadays.

There has been talk of republicans using Maine rule in Georgia, democrats in Minnesota, etc. Not sure how serious it is - might just be activists on Twitter - but I would prefer the winner of a state to get all of its electoral votes.

I completely agree, I also disagree with ranked choice voting, especially in Presidential elections.

[Mr. Smith]

I'd prefer a national popular vote.

Or at least a proportionate vote according to the percentages of the vote won. So somewhere like Georgia would be an 8-8 tie.