HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why we don't have to worr...

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:45 PM

Why we don't have to worry about Husted's Ohio idea (splitting up the EV)

In the modern era only the GOP has depended on Ohio not the Democrats. The closest that Democrats have come to depending on Ohio was in 1976, when Ohio had 25 WV and Carter had 297 EV. But under the division by district we would have lost far fewer than 25 EV. We won 10 CD that year and 7 of those were at least 60/40. Assume Carter only manage to win the 60/40 ones, we still would get 9 EV with the GOP getting 16. Instead of 297, Carter now has 281 and still wins.

The GOP on the other hand counted on Ohio twice (2000, and 2004). Bush got 271 EV, Gore 266, one abstained. Ohio had 21 EV. Democrats won 8 CD that year with none being even remotely close. But let's assume somehow Gore lost two of the 8 with no gains in the GOP districts. Gore now gets 6 EV to Bush's 15. Gore now wins with 272 EV without Florida. Yes, the Husted plan would have cost the GOP the election.

Kerry won 251 EV vs Bush's 286 with Ohio having 20 EV. Dems won 6 CD that year with GOP winning 12. So it wouldn't have cost Bush his reelection but it would have cut the margin from 35 to 24.

The GOP knows these numbers, Husted's plan is going no where.

40 replies, 2068 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why we don't have to worry about Husted's Ohio idea (splitting up the EV) (Original post)
dsc Nov 2012 OP
still_one Nov 2012 #1
dsc Nov 2012 #2
CreekDog Nov 2012 #8
dsc Nov 2012 #13
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #14
CreekDog Nov 2012 #28
dsc Nov 2012 #29
CreekDog Nov 2012 #30
dsc Nov 2012 #31
ellenfl Nov 2012 #3
dsc Nov 2012 #17
ellenfl Nov 2012 #33
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #19
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #4
dsc Nov 2012 #7
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #11
Arugula Latte Nov 2012 #16
Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #5
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #10
dsc Nov 2012 #15
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #18
dsc Nov 2012 #20
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #22
dsc Nov 2012 #25
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #26
dsc Nov 2012 #27
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #23
dsc Nov 2012 #24
dsc Nov 2012 #21
justice1 Nov 2012 #34
dsc Nov 2012 #35
CreekDog Nov 2012 #37
CreekDog Jan 2013 #39
dsc Jan 2013 #40
mick063 Nov 2012 #6
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #9
justice1 Nov 2012 #12
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #32
Faryn Balyncd Nov 2012 #36
CreekDog Jan 2013 #38

Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:49 PM

1. I disagree. If they want games like that then get rid of the electorial college, and do just the

Popular vote, but of course they don't want that

They were trying to do something similar, or talk about it in California

Bullshit. They are trying to fix the election in their favor, not make it fair

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:53 PM

2. I do worry about say PA doing this

since they haven't been a GOP state but are currently GOP dominated. But Ohio, and to take another example NC are not going to the congressional district method anytime soon since that would be more likely to hurt the GOP than help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:02 PM

8. under Husted's plan, Romney would have won this election

with 270 electoral votes.

i don't want that plan.

i want the Electoral College repealed. all the half-measures are fraught with risks that many people are not appreciating:

1) states might not vote as they say they will (faithless electors is a huge possibility)
2) states might vote differently because their legislature changes its mind
3) the whole way the election is to be decided is completely up in the air under the half-measures approach, maybe it will be by electoral college votes, the usual way, or maybe it will be by popular vote, or maybe some states will vote based on nationwide popular vote while other states do it the old way.

if we think our system is f-ed up now, try one of these Electoral Hybrid measures and see how badly it could really go!

Amend the constitution (yes, it's damned hard, maybe impossible) to put in Popular voting for president and accept nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:19 PM

13. If he were king of the universe

but he isn't. Husted could only do this in OH and no, that wouldn't have given Romney the election. I didn't think I had to do that math, but evidently I do. Obama got 332 EV and Ohio has 18. 332 - 15 (the absolute most Romney could have gotten since Obama got the majority of the votes 2 EV for getting the majority plus the one district he had to win to get that majority) means Obama would have 317 EV which is more than 270. The fact is big one party states won't do this unless they are locally ruled by the other party. The only state currently in this spot is PA and thus the only one we should worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:22 PM

14. I think you mean Obama would have had 317

No heart attacks please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:05 AM

28. that's not what Think Progress says and please don't tell me what *not* to worry about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:17 AM

29. that is assuming they are psychic

which they presumedly are not. Oh, and we could have done the same to them in Arkansas (change it to proportional and good bye tie). We also could have done it in West Virginia. CD would have won us 1 or poportional would have won us 2 and again good bye tie. The fact is the GOP won't change Florida, won't change Virginia, and won't change Ohio since they are dependent on those states. Had they done that to even one of those states, let alone all three, and Bush would have lost 2000, and yes, they can read a map.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #29)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:24 AM

30. you keep saying what they won't do and you just don't know what they won't do

let's agree on that.

you act like you're talking about rational folks.

maybe not as much as you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:38 AM

31. they won't do it because they aren't stupid

The fact is Obama won by more than any of those states individually. In addition FL, VA, and OH have all been the one state by which a recent GOP President won by. Had any of those states been done that way in 2000, then Bush would have lost. Had Florida been that way in 2004 Bush would have lost that one too. Had OH and VA been that way in 2004 then Bush would have lost. Oh, and BTW, their numbers might not even be correct. I checked the Ohio numbers and it linked to the NYT House results page. Yes we won only 4 seats in Ohio but there were two strange races. One was incumbent on incumbent and very close. It is quite possible that Obama won that district even as Sutton lost it. the other race he might have won even as our Congressional candidate went down was LaTourette's district where we ran some dude against their hand picked successor. It was a far less safe district than most others and Obama almost certainly outperformed Blanchard. I checked and Blanchard lost 39 to 54. Sutton lost 48 to 52.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:57 PM

3. won't the doj have to approve since ohio is now subject to oversight for irregularities? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenfl (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:28 PM

17. I am not sure

I doubt it. I don't think any of Ohio is covered under the voting rights act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:04 PM

33. i guess not . . . it's not retroactive. bummer. something needs to be done. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenfl (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:31 PM

19. DoJ has no say over how states allocate their electoral votes

That right is delegated to them by the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:58 PM

4. I actually think we might see

a number of high EV states try to do this, such as FL, OH & PA. It will all depend on who controls the legislature and state house, and how committed they are.

With only a couple of low EV states doing it now, it isn't a player.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:02 PM

7. I can't imagine Florida doing it

Florida was the closest state this time and the GOP won it (and needed it) in both 2000 and 2004. And even if the Democrats somehow took over I can't see us being sure enough of losing it that we would change it. I do see PA maybe doing it but even then there are downsides for some of the GOP members in closer seats (the Dem nominee would have incentive to target those districts).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:14 PM

11. The reason I say FL

is because, as a state, it's turning reliably blue. However, there are big swaths of red as well. From an electoral perspective, 29 is great, but 15 is better than nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:25 PM

16. Well, actually, we know that the GOP didn't actually win it in 2000.

Stole it? Why yes, yes they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:58 PM

5. I would welcome proportional electoral votes based on the popular vote...

it would be a step toward popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:05 PM

10. I agree

It gives a much more accurate picture of how a state voted, and it gives a voice to people of both parties that live in states that are either dark blue or dark red.

I also think it would be a postive for voter turnout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:24 PM

15. No state will do that as it would pretty much end it as a state to contest

Half the states have 3,4,5 or 6 ev. In a 3 vote state it would take at least a 68 to 32 win to get any split better than 2 to 1. In a 4 EV state it would take around a 75 to 25 win to budge from 2/2 distribution. Even if you assume you are going to round you still need 62.5 to 37.5 which is a 25 point win. In a 5 vote state to win one vote you need to get to around 60% (a 3/2) split with over 70% needed for a 4/1 split. Even in a 6 EV state each EV is 16%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:29 PM

18. NE and ME both split by Congressional district

NE has 5 EVs - Romney won them all, popular vote was 50.6% to 37.8%.
ME has 4 EVs - Obama won them all, popular vote was 56% to 40.9%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:39 PM

20. that is way different that proportional

In NE Obama would have gotten 2 EV and Romney 3EV under a strict proportional vote and he would have needed to get somewhere north of 69% to earn that 4th EV. In ME, Obama would have likely gotten a 3/1 split but could have wound up 2/2 depending on what one meant by proportional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:44 PM

22. It's just another method of proportional

NE and ME go by Congressional district, with state popular vote winner taking the two Senatorial EVs.

That's the method I would like to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:03 PM

25. No it isn't

it is in a place like Iowa where districts are drawn with no regard to party, but in the vast majority of states, districts are drawn with regard to party and thus splitting by EV isn't at all the same as splitting by proportion of the popular vote. In my state, to take one really egregious example, we lost the popular vote 51 to 49. We actually won the US House vote, but have a 4 to 9 split in favor of the GOP meaning we would have been divided by 4 to 11 in the EV under Husted's system but 7 to 8 under proportional. Admittedly we would have gained since we got 0 EV but I still think it is a dumb system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:08 PM

26. Then you may want to notify the Federal Register and tell them that they're wrong

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#wtapv

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:18 PM

27. yes

Frankly that isn't what proportional means mathematically. They divide them up by district. Proportional voting means the more vote you get the more seats (or ev) you get regardless of where the vote is. That isn't what ME and NE do, and I don't care who wants to say differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:47 PM

23. And the NE/ME model is what Husted is proposing n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:50 PM

24. I know that but he won't do it

since it will hurt his party more than ours. It would have cost them the 2000 election and but the 2004 election in jeopardy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:40 PM

21. that is way different that proportional

In NE Obama would have gotten 2 EV and Romney 3EV under a strict proportional vote and he would have needed to get somewhere north of 69% to earn that 4th EV. In ME, Obama would have likely gotten a 3/1 split but could have wound up 2/2 depending on what one meant by proportional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:36 PM

34. NE doesn't split their votes that way.

Nebraska has five electoral votes, 3 Congressional districts, plus 2 Senate. Whoever wins the Congressional, automatically wins the Senate. The winner cannot have less than 4 electoral votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justice1 (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:41 PM

35. Two things

One I agree, and directly stated that NE isn't a proportional state, we have no such states. Two, it is possible, though rather unlikely, for a person to get 3EV while winning the popular vote in the state. Candidate A can win districts 1 and 2 by 100 votes each and lose district 3 by say 1000 votes. Candidate A would get the 2 EV for districts 1 and 2 while B would get the vote for district 3 and the 2EV for winning the total. Admittedly it would likely be impossible for that to happen with the current partisan make up of NE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #35)


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:08 PM

39. wow, you sure spoke with confidence about something you couldn't predict

and now it seems like you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:10 PM

40. No state has done it yet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:00 PM

6. Gerrymandering electoral votes

 

The facist's vision of the future

These rightous assholes always want to bring up "our forefathers" while they take a wrecking ball to long established precedent.

Splitting electoral votes, gerrymandering congressional districts, voter suppression, filibuster abuse, petitioning to leave the Union.

They can take that "what our forefathers intended" and shove it right up their Teabillie asses.

Fuck those sore losers. They are the minority and they need to take some serious mandate asskicking about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:03 PM

9. The Constitution is agnostic on how electoral votes are allocated

As for gerrymandering, that's a long standing tradition in both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:15 PM

12. Saw this on Reddit earlier...redistrictinggame.org

Sorry, I don't know how to do links, but I think is should be shared, so the average person understands, how our electoral process has been compromised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:12 AM

32. The presidential vote would merely reflect the Congressional vote,

If that were implemented across the country. And the Dems would always lose the 100 EVs reflecting the Senate allocation since the repukes win the greater number of states.
If the EC is replaced, the popular vote is the fairest way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:12 PM

36. THey don't just want to split the EV, but to gerrymander it so they can get the majority of EV even



...when losing the popular vote in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, while keeping the deep red states winner take all.

We need to do much more than worry. We need to stop this fascist shit in its tracts. They control the House, despite winning less House popular votes then Democrats, only because of their gerrymandering. They can not win by getting the most votes, so they intend to increase their manipulation and cheating.

If we don't stop them now before they change the rules in all the swing states, it will become more difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:07 PM

38. are you so sure now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread