The blog “Who is on the Presidential Ballot Where” can be seen here.
Comments
Useful Blog, “Who is on the Presidential Ballot Where” — 11 Comments
Yes, Chris and his website have been a great help to me.
******EMERGENCY******
Richard Winger need immediate response. If Hillary is replaced, will it be legitimate? What states can she be legitimately replaced? Can some states deny her replacement? Electoral College Ramifications? Please give your analysis and unbiased expertise. Possible Constitutional crises.
Relax. It would not be a Constitutional crisis. This is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College (and another good reason why it should NOT be abolished). Party presidential nominees are just placeholders for their slates of electors, although I would prefer Nebraska/Maine style district election of named on the ballot electors. Hillary’s electors would just vote for whomever the DNC power elites recommend.
The Nebraska/Maine model would be preferable to the current plurality winner take all model that we currently have. One drawback of that model in larger states with more congressional districts is that in larger states, districts tend to be more gerrymandered, and that might skew the state’s Electoral votes, though it’s still better than winner take all in all cases.
I have another suggestion. How about winner take all for a state’s EVs, but only when the candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast in that state. If a candidate can’t get a majority, the state’s electoral votes are allocated proportionately in some manner. I think a system like this could help third party candidates who have broad support (eg, Johnson and Stein), without giving too much support to truly splinter, non-serious candidacies. A system like this can be designed to require some minimal popular vote in a state, or limit the allocation to the top two or three finishers. In a system like that, with strong third parties that aren’t splinter groups, the major party candidates would pay attention to voters in all states, rather than concentrating efforts in just a narrow group of swing states.
If all states used the congressional district method like Maine and Nebraska, Romney would have won. Thanks to gerrymandering in FL, MC, OH, PA, VA, and WI, even though Obama won all those states, Romney won in more congressional districts than Obama in each of those states. Nationwide, Romney won several more congressional districtsthan Obama, and if they had been allocated one EC vote for each district, Romney would have won the EC.
Instead of congressional districts why don’t they use proportional allocation, similar to the way the Dems do their primary selection (I mean the way they are SUPPOSED to do it). That way you avoid gerrymandering but you also have every state in play, as if you reach a certain minimum threshold you will get some EVs.
It’s too confusing. Remove the people on 1 or 2 ballots and leave the rest.
The NE/ME district machinations just add to the EVIL ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander math in the ROTTED to the core Electoral College.
For the many math MORONS —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas (Congress, Electoral College, State legislatures, local legislative bodies) = 1/4 or less CONTROL = nonstop OLIGARCHS.
It shows — Genocide of the old American Indians, slavery, oppression of minorities, un-declared wars, national, state and local BANKRUPT regimes, etc. etc.
Clinton or Trump will be elected by perhaps 35-45 percent of the total popular votes (and about 25-30 percent of the votes in the States/DC needed to get the EVIL 270 of 538 ECV) (i.e. more ANTI-Democracy minority rule) and claim some sort of 100 percent *mandate* from HELL to do her or his EVIL.
STATISM infected the USA during both World Wars and the USA is NOW paying the REAL price of having 2 power mad STATIST candidates in the Donkey/Elephant parties.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Isn’t it ironic that General Washington’s concern about factions (political parties) is well served by the Electoral College. Yet, I notice that no-one’s mentioned (discussed) what would happen should a Independent candidate become seriously ill or die after Labor Day. Since the Federal government now forces all the States to mail their overseas ballots 45 days before the election, at least some-one who normally votes for a particular party knows that the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate WILL be replaced. Presumably if the Independent Presidential candidate is no longer able to campaign would his running mate be able to takeover the vacancy AND receive a similar vote support?
According to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, if a state denies or abridges the right to vote for President/VP or electors (or indicated other offices) it’s supposed to lose an equal proportion of its representation in the US House — and by implication, the corresponding Electoral College votes. And since the Supreme Court has acknowleged that diluting votes is a way of denying/abridging them, any state that doesn’t award its EC votes proportionally is at least arguably subject to the same “Mal-Apportionment Penalty”, as Professor Gordon names it.
Yes, Chris and his website have been a great help to me.
******EMERGENCY******
Richard Winger need immediate response. If Hillary is replaced, will it be legitimate? What states can she be legitimately replaced? Can some states deny her replacement? Electoral College Ramifications? Please give your analysis and unbiased expertise. Possible Constitutional crises.
Also very useful is http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/President-Details.phtml
Relax. It would not be a Constitutional crisis. This is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College (and another good reason why it should NOT be abolished). Party presidential nominees are just placeholders for their slates of electors, although I would prefer Nebraska/Maine style district election of named on the ballot electors. Hillary’s electors would just vote for whomever the DNC power elites recommend.
The Nebraska/Maine model would be preferable to the current plurality winner take all model that we currently have. One drawback of that model in larger states with more congressional districts is that in larger states, districts tend to be more gerrymandered, and that might skew the state’s Electoral votes, though it’s still better than winner take all in all cases.
I have another suggestion. How about winner take all for a state’s EVs, but only when the candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast in that state. If a candidate can’t get a majority, the state’s electoral votes are allocated proportionately in some manner. I think a system like this could help third party candidates who have broad support (eg, Johnson and Stein), without giving too much support to truly splinter, non-serious candidacies. A system like this can be designed to require some minimal popular vote in a state, or limit the allocation to the top two or three finishers. In a system like that, with strong third parties that aren’t splinter groups, the major party candidates would pay attention to voters in all states, rather than concentrating efforts in just a narrow group of swing states.
If all states used the congressional district method like Maine and Nebraska, Romney would have won. Thanks to gerrymandering in FL, MC, OH, PA, VA, and WI, even though Obama won all those states, Romney won in more congressional districts than Obama in each of those states. Nationwide, Romney won several more congressional districtsthan Obama, and if they had been allocated one EC vote for each district, Romney would have won the EC.
Instead of congressional districts why don’t they use proportional allocation, similar to the way the Dems do their primary selection (I mean the way they are SUPPOSED to do it). That way you avoid gerrymandering but you also have every state in play, as if you reach a certain minimum threshold you will get some EVs.
It’s too confusing. Remove the people on 1 or 2 ballots and leave the rest.
The NE/ME district machinations just add to the EVIL ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander math in the ROTTED to the core Electoral College.
For the many math MORONS —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas (Congress, Electoral College, State legislatures, local legislative bodies) = 1/4 or less CONTROL = nonstop OLIGARCHS.
It shows — Genocide of the old American Indians, slavery, oppression of minorities, un-declared wars, national, state and local BANKRUPT regimes, etc. etc.
Clinton or Trump will be elected by perhaps 35-45 percent of the total popular votes (and about 25-30 percent of the votes in the States/DC needed to get the EVIL 270 of 538 ECV) (i.e. more ANTI-Democracy minority rule) and claim some sort of 100 percent *mandate* from HELL to do her or his EVIL.
STATISM infected the USA during both World Wars and the USA is NOW paying the REAL price of having 2 power mad STATIST candidates in the Donkey/Elephant parties.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Isn’t it ironic that General Washington’s concern about factions (political parties) is well served by the Electoral College. Yet, I notice that no-one’s mentioned (discussed) what would happen should a Independent candidate become seriously ill or die after Labor Day. Since the Federal government now forces all the States to mail their overseas ballots 45 days before the election, at least some-one who normally votes for a particular party knows that the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate WILL be replaced. Presumably if the Independent Presidential candidate is no longer able to campaign would his running mate be able to takeover the vacancy AND receive a similar vote support?
Brandon (et al), take a look at this site:
http://www.asagordon.byethost10.com/map.htm
According to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, if a state denies or abridges the right to vote for President/VP or electors (or indicated other offices) it’s supposed to lose an equal proportion of its representation in the US House — and by implication, the corresponding Electoral College votes. And since the Supreme Court has acknowleged that diluting votes is a way of denying/abridging them, any state that doesn’t award its EC votes proportionally is at least arguably subject to the same “Mal-Apportionment Penalty”, as Professor Gordon names it.