Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Party representation by congressional district within a state has no bearing on allocation of electors granted to each state.

FAQ: Each party's caucus in each state nominates and elects its slate of electors tied to its party's candidate for POTUS. This function is ceremonial except that electors of any party are not obligated to pledge their vote's to the the candidate elected by popular vote. The general population does not elect them; the number of votes cast does not alter their number. Voters in each state elect one POTUS candidate, one set of electors.

Do you understand the electoral paradox established by the US Constitution? HRC did not.

The number of electors per state is fixed, independent of party affiliations within each state.
"Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census."
(D) are interested in counting greater numbers of live bodies (citizen, resident alien, or neither) for the 2020 census in order only to increase the number of districts and electors allocated to a state. Doing so necessarily subtracts from complementary states' House representation, because the total number of House representatives is fixed at 435.
"Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation."

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Nov 8th, 2018 at 09:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Taking Up 5 Cases, High Court Clears Way for Trial on Census Change
Led by New York, the challengers in the case contend that Commerce Secretary Wilbur ross added the citizenship question with ["]discriminatory intent["].
NB. Notice that the so-called intent does not reach for the very obvious POLITICAL consequence of distributing congressional districts out low-density pop states --everywhere by the coasts.
The challengers contend that the citizenship question will discourage participation by immigrants of color, causing population undercounts that will reduce the political power and federal funding of blue states for a decade.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Nov 8th, 2018 at 09:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by the s/b but the coasts, ie. central USA, "Trump Country"

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Nov 8th, 2018 at 09:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for this summary on the Electoral College.
Yes, I'm familiar with the POTUS election system and how a candidate can get elected while losing the popular vote.

What I noted is merely that the Dems made inroads in states that Trump carried in 2016. I mentioned PA and MI in particular because Trump won them by only a few thousand votes in 2016 (I'm not a specialist, I just read Wiki). This might not necessarily happen again in 2020.

Also among the so-called "swing states", Florida was won by Trump with only 80000 votes (out of 9.4 millions); will it happen again in 2020? (I understand FL amendment 4 may have an impact too)

by Bernard on Thu Nov 8th, 2018 at 10:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pointing out that the predictive power of mid-term election results on POTUS election results is weak. The press and its clients are primarily interested in generating dramatic, epic tales about party loyalty and voter participation that scarcely exist.

Yes, Trump can win on electoral results alone, again.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Nov 8th, 2018 at 11:45:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thinking About 2020 Nate Silver, 538
So here's some slightly scary news for Trump: The 2018 map looked more like 2012 than 2016, with Democrats performing quite well in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the three states that essentially won Trump the election two years ago.

As a "fun," day-after-the-election experiment, I decided to add up the total popular vote for the U.S. House in each state, based on ABC News's tally of votes as of Wednesday afternoon. This isn't a perfect exercise, by any means. The vote is still being counted in many states; there are a few dozen congressional districts where one of the parties (usually Republicans) didn't nominate a candidate. I did make one adjustment for a slightly different problem, which is that Florida doesn't bother to count votes in uncontested races, something that cost Democrats in the neighborhood of 720,000 votes off their popular-vote tally in that state.2

With those caveats aside, here's the map you come up with if you count up the popular vote. It ought to look familiar. In fact, it's the same exact map by which Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, except with Ohio going to Republicans. It would have equated to 314 electoral votes for Democrats and 224 for the GOP.

Then a map less favorable to the Democrats for 2020:

Of course the map looks good for you when you've had a good night. How about in an average year instead, when the overall vote is fairly close? Democrats currently lead in the national popular vote for the House by around 6 percentage points, and they're likely to run that total up to 7 or perhaps 8 percentage points as additional votes are counted, mostly from the West Coast mail-balloting states (California, Oregon, Washington). On the other hand, the Democratic margin is a bit inflated because Republicans let quite a few districts go uncontested. So let's go ahead and subtract 6 points from the Democrat's 2018 margin in every state; this is a benchmark for what things might have looked like in a roughly neutral year:

IMO, 2020 will be about as neutral as was 2018, So, perhaps we need not despair. There seems to be a reasonable hope for a 2020 outcome favorable to Democrats. And it seems likely that, by 2020, Democrats might have a new House Speaker and another crop of more progressive members.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2018 at 06:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2016 Actual - House [POLITICO]

2018 Current -House [538 shown: last update 227(D),198 (R); BLOOMBERG:last update 231 (D), 198(R), 11 outstanding]

What do these maps signify? (1.) Geographic area of congressional districts (2.) Partisan "control" of geographic area (3.) "Correlation" of partisan districts to electoral outcome in 2016, when Trump won greatest number of electors, which Nate Silver does not want to discuss. Why? Correlation of district representation to electoral outcome is weak. Correlation of voter participation --greatest in POTUS election-- to candidate is strong. And the opposition party candidate with "charisma" to unseat an incumbent is unknown. Anyone Butrump is not a candidate.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Nov 10th, 2018 at 03:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here, Richard Florida hosts Rahm Emmanuel's trash talk about "Blue Wave" across Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). West Virginia is to a Chicago suburb as every teachers' union strike is to #GoogleWalkout.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Nov 10th, 2018 at 10:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Après May

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 22

The gloves are off

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 20

Brexit Fun: The John Bercow Show

by Oui - Mar 18

Healing Earth (Through the Waters)

by gmoke - Mar 19

People playing games

by Frank Schnittger - Mar 15

No justice for Bloody Sunday

by IdiotSavant - Mar 14

Occasional Series