Another perspicacious piece by the esteemed and thorough Nate Silver. While Mr. Silver was studying math in high school, I was winning Nebraska state debate championships. I am a Sophist. He is the true Athenian. Watch out for that hemlock. Having worked as the Director of Propaganda and Sophistry for one Jeffrey Lane Fortenberry (Retired U.S. Congressman, CD-1), and born and raised in the Cornhusker State, I can state with some confidence that Nebraska is never changing how it apportions electoral votes. First, that move would kill a key strategic reason for presidential candidates to visit Omaha, home of CD-2 and what we Bugeaters call "The Bacon/Biden" voter. In the 2020 general, Republican House member Don Bacon comfortably won CD-2, even as Democrat Joe Biden also comfortably carried CD-2. The reason for this split ticket is not that cities usually trend Democratic in national elections, even when the Mayor is Republican (as in the case with Omaha's Jean Stothert), but that in CD-2, there are two counties: all of Douglas County (which is Democratic in its urban core), and some of Sarpy County, which is a mixed bag. Sarpy is home to many Republicans and moderate Democrats who presently work or formerly worked at Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue––which, due to weird redistricting, is part of CD-1)––where General Don Bacon was wing commander. Sarpy is the the heart of the Bacon/Biden voter. Secondly, campaigns spend large amounts of money in the Omaha TV market, not only to win CD-2, but, just as important, to win Iowa in the caucus elections and general. Omaha is right across the Missouri River from Council Bluffs, Iowa. Finally, this election is not going to be close. Democrats are going to win it walking away, despite what current polls indicate. I outlined the reasons here: https://crotty.substack.com/p/joe-biden-has-99-problems-but-trump
I've thought about this before. I think that first map is quite plausible and if that were the difference between Biden winning or Trump winning I'm pretty sure red Nebraska would figure out a way to give all of its electoral votes to Trump (and that Maine wouldn't be able to do the same for Biden). And I don't think courts would overturn it. So in my mind that's a map that's nominally 270-268 Biden but is fairly likely to yield a President Trump.
I agree that it probably wouldn't cost Biden, assuming it passes, but I think it's a lot more likely than Nate gives it credit for in this scenario. In fact, there's probably a multiple-point window in the national popular vote that could lead to a 270-268 win for Biden (or 269-269 if NE changes).
Let's assume that if any states outside the magic 6 flip, than whoever flips those is winning the election anyway and we can kind of disregard (i.e. I don't see Florida suddenly becoming more pro-Biden than Wisconsin). The six states we care about are WI, MI, PA, GA, AZ, NV. Biden is doing less badly in WI/MI/PA than GA/NV/AZ. The next closest "state" beyond WI/MI/PA for Biden actually might be NE-2 itself (which Biden won by 6% in 2020) or MN/NH are also pretty similar to that margin (Biden won by 7% in 2020).
Now, let's look at recent polling. I'll use the 538 polls in a nod to my boy Nate. (but they took away their weighted averages? sad!)
National Polling: Tied
GA: ~Trump +4
AZ: ~Trump +5
NV: ~Trump +4
MI: ~Trump +3
WI: ~Trump +1
PA: ~Trump +1
NE-2: ?
MN: ~Biden +6
NH: ~ Biden +6
Biden doing pretty bad in Michigan compared to his 2020 numbers is the main thing that might mess this scenario up, but there could be a solid 3-point window in the national results (anything from roughly a tie to Biden winning by 3-4 points) where this 270-268 scenario arises. So I would argue that any single scenario is unlikely, but this may be the single most-likely scenario even if it's only a 25% shot overall.
I know it's early, but I'm ready for discussions about tipping point states and models again. I've got all my tailgating supplies ready for another season of American politics I am probably going to both obsess about and hate.
It's bittersweet. It's a dark well to get dragged down. But it's catnip, we're all going to be talking about polling firm quality and momentum and ground games before too long, let's just get on with it.
What if you did weighted probabilities? I know that adds subjectivity, but the Nebraska scenario seems (I know... I know...) more plausible than 1/64. We don't give equal weight to all 64 (less the play in game losers) NCAA tournament teams.
I'm a big fan of the winner taking two EVs (electoral votes, not cybertrucks - although that would be cool, too), with the remainder being allocated proportionately.
For a campaign the Democrats and Biden are running on the threat to Democracy then Biden is sticking his thumb in the public’s eyes by holding so few unscripted press conferences without notecards. Also maybe holding a few of these would give Democrats a more confident feeling about Biden’s age. This is about Biden not Trump.
Maine's approach of awarding an elector to the winner of each Congressional district is at least in the direction of making the Electoral Vote closer to the popular vote, because all congressional districts have about the same population.
It is a far better approach than the National Compact, which could potentially award all of a state's electors to a candidate who didn't get even a single vote in the state. It may also violate Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution, which forbids states to enter into any alliance or confederation. This may be the reason, for example, that the New England Dairy Compact (which keeps dairy prices high) is a Federal Law rather than an agreement among the New England States.
One of my favorite topics to consider. If each state were to assign Electoral Votes by the Maine method, AND there were many more districts, it would result in a pretty fair way to elect a President. The number of districts has been frozen at 435 since the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Prior to that, the size of the House of Representatives (and thus the number of districts) grew as the nation's population grew. By freezing the number of districts (despite population growth), it makes it easier to gerrymander, and it ends up increasing the rural bias. Let's say there should be twice as many districts. Then the "bonus" that the rural states get by getting the two Electoral Votes for each state would be diluted. And smaller districts are tougher to gerrymander. With each state going by the Maine method, there would be incentive for candidates to campaign in more than just the handful of swing states. Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and require each state to use the "Maine Method." Who's with me??
I'm somewhat surprised that in the discussion of proportional allocation of electoral votes, nobody seems to have suggested the "obvious" plan of having each State allocate all of its electors based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives in the whole State. E.g. Maryland has 10 electors, the vote split was 65%-32% for Biden, so he gets 7 electors (rounding) and Trump gets 3. This is the closest you can get to the popular vote, without any risk of violating the Constitution (but of course all States would have to agree independently to do this, unless there is an Amendment). Based on this system, it's practically impossible for a candidate to win the popular vote while losing the Presidency (I actually calculated what would have happened in 2016, and Clinton would have won the EC).
I understand that there are 2 votes in each State that are considered to correspond to Senators (therefore the whole State), while the rest are supposed to correspond to House Reps (therefore to each House district). But that's just how the total number of electors is calculated, there is no direct mapping between electors and districts (and clearly there isn't one in the current system). So it's really surprising to me that this kind of system is not being discussed, either here or more broadly.
PS: Note that this is not the same as Pennsylvania's proposed system, discussed in the article linked in the end of Nate's post.
Nate the vast majority of libtards in the USA think the electoral college is an academic institution and probably was in the NCAA wimmins basketball tournament.
I still think this election will be very close to tied, so a 269-269 outcome, or something very close to that within ±10 is highly likely. We may not know until NE-2 and half a dozen states have their recounts.
"In some states there’s even a vicious cycle where state legislatures are responsible for setting congressional boundary lines and gerrymander them, but those state legislatures are also gerrymandered."
Could someone explain the last part of that sentence? How are state legislatures gerrymandered?
Another perspicacious piece by the esteemed and thorough Nate Silver. While Mr. Silver was studying math in high school, I was winning Nebraska state debate championships. I am a Sophist. He is the true Athenian. Watch out for that hemlock. Having worked as the Director of Propaganda and Sophistry for one Jeffrey Lane Fortenberry (Retired U.S. Congressman, CD-1), and born and raised in the Cornhusker State, I can state with some confidence that Nebraska is never changing how it apportions electoral votes. First, that move would kill a key strategic reason for presidential candidates to visit Omaha, home of CD-2 and what we Bugeaters call "The Bacon/Biden" voter. In the 2020 general, Republican House member Don Bacon comfortably won CD-2, even as Democrat Joe Biden also comfortably carried CD-2. The reason for this split ticket is not that cities usually trend Democratic in national elections, even when the Mayor is Republican (as in the case with Omaha's Jean Stothert), but that in CD-2, there are two counties: all of Douglas County (which is Democratic in its urban core), and some of Sarpy County, which is a mixed bag. Sarpy is home to many Republicans and moderate Democrats who presently work or formerly worked at Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue––which, due to weird redistricting, is part of CD-1)––where General Don Bacon was wing commander. Sarpy is the the heart of the Bacon/Biden voter. Secondly, campaigns spend large amounts of money in the Omaha TV market, not only to win CD-2, but, just as important, to win Iowa in the caucus elections and general. Omaha is right across the Missouri River from Council Bluffs, Iowa. Finally, this election is not going to be close. Democrats are going to win it walking away, despite what current polls indicate. I outlined the reasons here: https://crotty.substack.com/p/joe-biden-has-99-problems-but-trump
I've thought about this before. I think that first map is quite plausible and if that were the difference between Biden winning or Trump winning I'm pretty sure red Nebraska would figure out a way to give all of its electoral votes to Trump (and that Maine wouldn't be able to do the same for Biden). And I don't think courts would overturn it. So in my mind that's a map that's nominally 270-268 Biden but is fairly likely to yield a President Trump.
I agree that it probably wouldn't cost Biden, assuming it passes, but I think it's a lot more likely than Nate gives it credit for in this scenario. In fact, there's probably a multiple-point window in the national popular vote that could lead to a 270-268 win for Biden (or 269-269 if NE changes).
Let's assume that if any states outside the magic 6 flip, than whoever flips those is winning the election anyway and we can kind of disregard (i.e. I don't see Florida suddenly becoming more pro-Biden than Wisconsin). The six states we care about are WI, MI, PA, GA, AZ, NV. Biden is doing less badly in WI/MI/PA than GA/NV/AZ. The next closest "state" beyond WI/MI/PA for Biden actually might be NE-2 itself (which Biden won by 6% in 2020) or MN/NH are also pretty similar to that margin (Biden won by 7% in 2020).
Now, let's look at recent polling. I'll use the 538 polls in a nod to my boy Nate. (but they took away their weighted averages? sad!)
National Polling: Tied
GA: ~Trump +4
AZ: ~Trump +5
NV: ~Trump +4
MI: ~Trump +3
WI: ~Trump +1
PA: ~Trump +1
NE-2: ?
MN: ~Biden +6
NH: ~ Biden +6
Biden doing pretty bad in Michigan compared to his 2020 numbers is the main thing that might mess this scenario up, but there could be a solid 3-point window in the national results (anything from roughly a tie to Biden winning by 3-4 points) where this 270-268 scenario arises. So I would argue that any single scenario is unlikely, but this may be the single most-likely scenario even if it's only a 25% shot overall.
Are we doing maps and models now!?!?
I know it's early, but I'm ready for discussions about tipping point states and models again. I've got all my tailgating supplies ready for another season of American politics I am probably going to both obsess about and hate.
It's bittersweet. It's a dark well to get dragged down. But it's catnip, we're all going to be talking about polling firm quality and momentum and ground games before too long, let's just get on with it.
What if you did weighted probabilities? I know that adds subjectivity, but the Nebraska scenario seems (I know... I know...) more plausible than 1/64. We don't give equal weight to all 64 (less the play in game losers) NCAA tournament teams.
I'm a big fan of the winner taking two EVs (electoral votes, not cybertrucks - although that would be cool, too), with the remainder being allocated proportionately.
For a campaign the Democrats and Biden are running on the threat to Democracy then Biden is sticking his thumb in the public’s eyes by holding so few unscripted press conferences without notecards. Also maybe holding a few of these would give Democrats a more confident feeling about Biden’s age. This is about Biden not Trump.
The first map seems the most likely if the election were today and so in that case, wow what a difference Nebraska would make. Interesting stuff.
Maine's approach of awarding an elector to the winner of each Congressional district is at least in the direction of making the Electoral Vote closer to the popular vote, because all congressional districts have about the same population.
It is a far better approach than the National Compact, which could potentially award all of a state's electors to a candidate who didn't get even a single vote in the state. It may also violate Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution, which forbids states to enter into any alliance or confederation. This may be the reason, for example, that the New England Dairy Compact (which keeps dairy prices high) is a Federal Law rather than an agreement among the New England States.
One of my favorite topics to consider. If each state were to assign Electoral Votes by the Maine method, AND there were many more districts, it would result in a pretty fair way to elect a President. The number of districts has been frozen at 435 since the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Prior to that, the size of the House of Representatives (and thus the number of districts) grew as the nation's population grew. By freezing the number of districts (despite population growth), it makes it easier to gerrymander, and it ends up increasing the rural bias. Let's say there should be twice as many districts. Then the "bonus" that the rural states get by getting the two Electoral Votes for each state would be diluted. And smaller districts are tougher to gerrymander. With each state going by the Maine method, there would be incentive for candidates to campaign in more than just the handful of swing states. Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and require each state to use the "Maine Method." Who's with me??
"if Biden holds the former 'Blue Wall' states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio" I believe you meant to say Wisconsin, not Ohio
I'm somewhat surprised that in the discussion of proportional allocation of electoral votes, nobody seems to have suggested the "obvious" plan of having each State allocate all of its electors based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives in the whole State. E.g. Maryland has 10 electors, the vote split was 65%-32% for Biden, so he gets 7 electors (rounding) and Trump gets 3. This is the closest you can get to the popular vote, without any risk of violating the Constitution (but of course all States would have to agree independently to do this, unless there is an Amendment). Based on this system, it's practically impossible for a candidate to win the popular vote while losing the Presidency (I actually calculated what would have happened in 2016, and Clinton would have won the EC).
I understand that there are 2 votes in each State that are considered to correspond to Senators (therefore the whole State), while the rest are supposed to correspond to House Reps (therefore to each House district). But that's just how the total number of electors is calculated, there is no direct mapping between electors and districts (and clearly there isn't one in the current system). So it's really surprising to me that this kind of system is not being discussed, either here or more broadly.
PS: Note that this is not the same as Pennsylvania's proposed system, discussed in the article linked in the end of Nate's post.
Nate the vast majority of libtards in the USA think the electoral college is an academic institution and probably was in the NCAA wimmins basketball tournament.
I still think this election will be very close to tied, so a 269-269 outcome, or something very close to that within ±10 is highly likely. We may not know until NE-2 and half a dozen states have their recounts.
"In some states there’s even a vicious cycle where state legislatures are responsible for setting congressional boundary lines and gerrymander them, but those state legislatures are also gerrymandered."
Could someone explain the last part of that sentence? How are state legislatures gerrymandered?
Thanx
Anyone want a rundown of the drama that led to this? Read my article here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thinkeratthegates/p/maga-declares-support-for-electoral?r=28s97t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web