Ladies and germs, the Kos Kreeps are finally done with the final state, NC. The only GOP seat to see a noteworthy decline was the 2nd district, where George Holding crushed Kevin McCarthy’s mistress Renee Elmers in the primary after re-redistricting (so thanks for that stupid lib courts!!!!), it has rich suburbs surely. Trump lost 3 points there, though Hillary gained none. Holding got over 56%, matching Romney’s 2012 vote share.
Wish we could do better in RINO Walter Jones’ district which went 60.5% Trump.
Though I was certain there would be no split districts in NC, I waited till now to provide this analysis.
241+ districts elected a Republican to Congress, of which 241 took office since the GOP refuses to use their powers to challenge elections like the rats did with that Indiana seat in 1984.
Of those 241 districts, Shillery carried 23
CA-10/21/25/39/45/48/49 (7 GOP districts in the state to Trump’s 5, FU Cali)
TX-7/23/32
PA-6/7
FL-26/27
WA-8, AZ-2, CO-6, KS-3, MN-3, IL-6, VA-10, NJ-7, NY-24
Trump meanwhile carried 12 districts won or “won” by rats
MN-1/7/8
NV-3 (rat gain), AZ-1, IA-2, IL-17, WI-3, PA-17, NJ 5 (rat gain probably our #1 target for 2018), NY-18, NH-1 (rat gain, this is a very slutty acey ducey district that keeps getting back together with Che-Porter)
23 - 12 -= 11, 241 - 11 = 230 districts carried by Trump
MN (4 of 9!), AZ, IL, PA, NY, and NJ saw split districts on both sides.
That rats managed to gain or “gain” 3 seats that Trump carried and that we failed to gain any of the previously rat held seats carried by Trump other than NE-2 and FL-18 (and FL-2 which was certain due to redistricting), is one of the little specs of brown (not chocolate) in a mostly delicious election. That we easily held most of the previously GOP districts that went to Shillery was in contrast, very good, putting us at +11 net.
Now then, I forgot how Romney would have fared if we used the congressional district method in all states.
But lets look at how Trump would have done, he carried 230 districts, plus 30 states ie 60 evs, that’s 290-245. Exactly what he would have gotten had he failed to narrowly win Michigan.
If we use of Auh2’s method of giving 1 electoral vote to the statewide winner and 1 to the winner of the most districts in the state (with statewide as tiebreaker) that would have gained Trump 1 additional vote each from MN (5-3) and VA (6-5) which were carried by Shillery.
292-243
While this distastefully would have gotten Shillery 14 votes closer to winning it would have substantially lowered her chances of getting to 270. Under AuhO’s modified system Trump could have narrowly lost MI, WI, and PA statewide (which in the real world would have given Shillery 278) and lost only 3 votes, still winning with 289 and plenty of room to spare. Lose FL? Still wins at 288! Lose Diaz-Balart’s district in FL? That gives Hillary more districts in the state (GD district map) and thus 2 more votes. But Trump still wins with 286, matching Bush in 2004!
Based on these election results Shillery would have had little chance under this system.
Thanks for the recap, Impy. Excellent job, although I think that you have a typo in your CA snippet: CA has 14 Republicans in the House, 7 from Hillary CDs and thus 7 (not 5) from Trump CDs. I just looked up the CDs carried by Trump in CA: CA-01 (LaMalfa), CA-04 (McClintock), CA-08 (Cook), CA-22 (Nunes), CA-23 (McCarthy), CA-42 (Calvert) and CA-50 (Hunter).
Regarding the adoption of the CD method of EV allocation, there is no way that we’ll ever get multi-district states that are comfortably RAT in presidential elections (such as CA, NY, IL and MD) to adopt such a plan given that the GOP won’t get a trifecta (state house, state senate and governorship) in those states in the foreseeable future. The GOP also is missing complete control in NV, NM, CO, MN, PA, NC, NJ, VA, OR and WA, and Democrats there won’t go along with the CD method because such change would help the GOP. Right now, I guess that we can adopt it in MI, WI, OH, MI, IN and FL, but I wouldn’t do so until we know for sure that we’ll control 2022 redistricting in those states and that several states will be making the change to the CD method. The only “lone wolves” that I would favor adopting the CD nethod even in the absence of of coordination with other states are NH and (if we gain the governorship this year) VA.
And, yes, I would allocate the two non-CD-based EVs by giving one to the statewide winner and one to the winner of the most CDs (and, in case if a tie for most CDs carried, the EV going for the candidate with the most statewide votes among those tied). Allocating an EV to the winner of the most CDs (instead of giving both extra EVs to the statewide winner) could help us in many states (as Impy mentioned, Trump would have gotten one extra EV in MN and VA and would have held on to one of the extra CDs even had he not carried PA, MI, WI or FL), but I would keep at least one EV to be allocated to the statewide winner in order to help us in the obligatory constitutional challenges from Democrats based on alleged violations of one-man, one-vote and equal protection.
Color me thick but what does all this churning accomplish? We do not have this system? Or is there a point here I’m missing?
“But lets look at how Trump would have done, he carried 230 districts, plus 30 states ie 60 evs, that’s 290-245. Exactly what he would have gotten had he failed to narrowly win Michigan.
If we use of Auh2’s method of giving 1 electoral vote to the statewide winner and 1 to the winner of the most districts in the state (with statewide as tiebreaker) that would have gained Trump 1 additional vote each from MN (5-3) and VA (6-5) which were carried by Shillery.
292-243
While this distastefully would have gotten Shillery 14 votes closer to winning it would have substantially lowered her chances of getting to 270. Under AuhO’s modified system Trump could have narrowly lost MI, WI, and PA statewide (which in the real world would have given Shillery 278) and lost only 3 votes, still winning with 289 and plenty of room to spare. Lose FL? Still wins at 288! Lose Diaz-Balart’s district in FL? That gives Hillary more districts in the state (GD district map) and thus 2 more votes. But Trump still wins with 286, matching Bush in 2004!
Based on these election results Shillery would have had little chance under this system.”
___________________________
I decided to crunch the numbers and see just how much a nationwide adoption of a modified CD method for allocating EVs (one electoral vote per CD carried, plus one EV to the statewide winner and one EV for the winner of the most CDs) would have benefited President Trump in 2016, even had he fared worse in the popular vote.`
Had Donald Trump received 2% less, and Hillary Clinton 2% more, in every single CD and state in America, Trump would have received 43.94% of the national popular vote to Hillary’s 50.03%. Under such scenario, and under our present method of EV allocation (winner-takes-all in all states by ME and NE, and one per CD plus two to the statewide winner in ME and NE), Hillary would have carried MI, PA, WI, FL, AZ, NC and the NE-02 for a whopping 334 electoral votes to only 204 for Trump.
But under the modified CD method of EV allocation, Trump would have managed to win 266 EVs (62 more than under our current system) even had he lost a net 4% of the vote in every single CD and state. That assumes that Trump no longer would have carried AZ-01 (O’Halleran), FL-25 (Díaz-Balart), GA-06 (the CD that Price vacated), IA-01 (Blum), IA-03 (Young), IL-14 (Hultgren), IL-17 (Bustos), MN-02 (Lewis), NE-02 (Bacon), NH-01 (Shea-Poerter), NJ-05 (Gottheimer), NJ-11 (Frelinghuysen), NV-03 (Rosen), NY-18 (Maloney), PA-08 (Fitzpatrick) or VA-08 (Taylor), and would have lost the extra CDs for winning MI, PA, WI, FL, AZ and NC statewide and for winning the most CDs in AZ, FL, MN and VA. However, if that 4% net loss came about by Trump losing 5% in in big cities and close-in suburbs but only losing 3% elsewhere, he would have carried IA-01, IA-03 and VA-02, plus a majority of CDs in VA, then Trump would have received 270 EVs (and thus been elected president) despite losing the national popular vote by over 6%.
With respect to the 2012 presidential elections, Romney would have won 280 EVs (and thus the presidency) under the modified CD allocation method despite losing the national popular vote by 3.86% (and losing by a bit less than 5.4% in the last state that would have put him over the top in the electoral college under the current system).
In conclusion, a modified CD method of EV allocation would be highly beneficial to the GOP should it be adopted nationally. Given that that’s not going to happen, though, individual GOP-controlled states should act in concert to adopt the allocation method in those states where Democrat presidential candidates are competitive statewide but where most CDs vote for the GOP presidential candidate, but only if a large group of such states adopt it.