The 2024 Electoral Map If Every State Voted by Congressional District
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ม.ค. 2024
- In today's video, we'll explore a hypothetical 2024 electoral college map where every state adopts the electoral vote allocation system of Nebraska and Maine. This method involves awarding two electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. This approach reflects the state's Senators and House members, totaling 538 electoral votes in a presidential election-100 from U.S. Senators, 435 from House members, and 3 from the District of Columbia as constitutionally allocated.
Check out my official 2024 forecasting website: www.electionpredictionsoffici...
Help EPO reach 100k subscribers: / @electionpredictionsof...
Become a member:
/ @electionpredictionsof...
Join our discord: / discord
Get in touch: electionpredictionsofficial@gmail.com
Follow EPO on social media:
Instagram: / electionpredictionsoff...
Facebook: / electionpredictionsoff...
Twitter: / epofficialyt
Connect with me on LinkedIn: / ryan-gest-011ab9214
Thank you to my channel members!
AllNewYear 2023
Freedom Tompkins
TheDictator
David B
Michael Goodman
Daniel Gruhn
Victor Monchalin
Election Predictions Official is the fastest-growing non-partisan political channel on TH-cam, focused on analyzing and forecasting elections based on socio-demographics, polling data, and voting patterns. My official 2020 Presidential Election Forecast correctly predicted the outcome in 49 of 50 states. My 2022 Senate Forecast accurately projected the winners in 33 of 34 races.
This channel is run solely by Ryan Gest, a student at The George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs, and an elections data science fellow at Decision Desk HQ.
Hashtags: #2024election #joebiden #donaldtrump
This is a really bad idea when you take gerrymandering into account
Yep dems are way behind the ball on gerrymandering. No reason for dems to give up 18 odd EVs in california just to get rolled harder by great plains states which have 1 or 2 GOP districts or for medium sized states, they have gerrymandered districts.
Agreed
Agree, but you have to consider that each state is allowed for vote however the heck they want to as long as their state congress approves it. So if Illinois and Indiana both want to gerrymander like crazy like they already are to give more votes to the president, then more power to them.
Illinois already has the worst congeasional map on the country
I wish the maps were done by 3rd parties
I think I remember reading that if all states Splits their delegates in 2012 Romney would’ve won
yes if the congressional district method was used in 2012 Romney would have won with an electoral score of 282-253
That is just messing with the existing numbers, if that election took place in a timeline where all states split the delegates then the whole election result would be different.
-Just how many more votes would the GOP get in California if their votes mattered?
@Merecir not just the gop benefits thats alot of democrat electoral votes out of Florida and texas
@@maxflares8888 Of course, just pointing out that applying the current popular vote to a scenario where every vote actually counted does not come close to what would actually happen.
@@Merecir oh?
The methodology of this distribution doesn’t really make sense. Take Alaska. Giving 2 votes to republicans because Trump won in 2020 and 1 vote to democrats because Peltola won in 2022 doesn’t make sense because in a congressional allocation of electoral college votes, both the state contest and the house contest would be the same votes, and must vote in the same direction
Theoretically speaking Alaska at large like any other state could vote differently for different races. They voted blue for the house but red for the Senate in 2022 just as an example.
This was only because of this specific example. If it was done in a presidential election Alaska, along with any other 3 electoral vote state, would go all to one candidate, in 2020's case, Trump
@@shomechakraborty - The flaw is that he is mixing up the election years. He should take the congressional results from the same year as the Presidential election.
@@darriuscole8544the issue is redistricting put some extra districts and removed them from others
7:04 Think about how would Alaska split its vote so it would have two state wide and then another state wide no one would vote for two different candidates as president. A single district state would give 3 Electoral votes to the statewide winner regardless of who it voted for in the house
Let's see a video where the Apportionment Act of 1929 (capping house at 435) has been repealed. This would take each congressional district representing 750k constituents, down to 35-40k. Yes more congressional districts but better representation of the citizenry. 🇺🇲🥓🥩🥃🍻🇺🇲1️⃣9️⃣9️⃣
I love this! This is the reason we have uncontrolled corruption in the US. Based on the Federal Budget of $7T and 535 reps (house plus senate), means each politician decides how we spend $13B every year. That’s more wealth power than Elon musk or Jeff Bezos!
We have a major corruption problem and it’s because the representatives power grows every year.
I created a spread sheet that did this based on two models. One model using the size of House seats in 1929 (about 1500 seats) and another which determines seats by dividing the population by the least populous state (~570 House seats). Neither of these methods changed the outcome of any Presidentail election going back to 1960;, although the spread in electoral votes did change a bit, this was not consistent. Over time, each party has tended to win a pretty consistent share of large, medium, and small states.
I'm with you in the belief that the 1929 Apportionment Act is the root of much government evil. In addition to the capping of seats, the act did away with the requirement that Districts be compact as possible and adheare to existing state, county and administrative boundaries to the greatest extent possible.
538 ran an experiment using a Congress that adheared to the "compact and matching administrative boundaries". The results were interesting.
The results
@@luddite4change449 hiya, the results are not posted, on your comment. could you make it into a hyperlink by chance?
Oh yeah, let’s just put more idiots in Washington DC and create more gridlock. The people that are there cannot complete the tasks assigned to them and you think more people is a solution? Stupid idea!
I wish every state would work same as Nebraska and Maine, the states with 3EV and D.C. would be the only exceptions since the electoral district is the state at large
Yeah, this method is fairer.
@@peterbanh1364 and way more democratic*
@@Haaaaaaaaarper We are a republic, not a democracy.
Ultimately, I don't know why we would go this way when the national popular vote makes the most sense. Who identifies with a state in the modern era? Most people just identify as US citizens, not West Virginia citizens. It would solve the issue of Republicans in CA not having a national voice and Democrats in Ohio at the same time.
@jadapinkett1656 You are both. You elect representatives democratically to represent you in congress. The USA is a federal republic using a democratic system to select the different offices
Thank you, I have wondered how this would affect the outcome.
Definitely would be an improvement over the current system. But still need to fix gerrymandering and the 270 electoral majority requirement to be truely fair.
I would like to see how the 1960 election would have gone.
Very intriguing video, thanks
This is definitely a better system in representation. But because it favors republicans - it will pushed away
It doesn't favour Republicans, that's just how the 2022 house race went.
If he used 2018 house results, it would look to favour Democrats.
Bro everything in the US electoral system favours republicans stop being a baby. Wyoming gets the same amount of senators as California. GOP gerrymanders way harder in house districting than dems. The whole system is biased in favour of giving undue extra representation to tiny states, which the republicans tend to do amazingly in.
It would be a better system if we didn't have gerrymandering and each congressional district had roughly the same number of people.
@@nikhilnagboth8425 Much better, and more democratic, to base it on proportional representation in each state.
For California, that would mean 35 to DEM and 19 to GOP.
@@nikhilnagboth8425 Popular vote bypasses gerrymandering altogether.
It's a lot closer to the system we use in Australia to elect State Premiers and Prime Ministers. Fairer to voter, but a lot harder to predict what's going to happen.
Very Good Job as always! A very warm salute from Brazil!
What if electoral votes were alloted by popular vote in each state...depending on the ratio of a candidate's vote to the total popular vote in a state, electoral cotes are allocated that way?
E.g. Maryland
Biden 1.9m
Trump 0.9m
MD EV = 10
Biden 7
Trump 3
I think that would be a lot fairer and would make a better case than alloting by CD since they're gerrymandered
Which gerrymandered state congressional districts do you want to remove? Illinois has the worst gerrymandering in the country.
So like some primaries. Makes 3rd parties more relevant. Closer to Europe.
You neglected Sharice Davids and this system is very flawed due to gerrymandering. I’m actually surprised that after Biden’s 2020 win Nebraska didn’t attempt to make the 2nd district even redder
They did lol, not by a whole lot but they shifted it a few points to the right.
can you do this for past elections?
Ive been advocating for this system for years now at this point. Pretty much ever since i could vote.
I like it!!
The Alaska example doesn't really work with mixing 2022 and 2020 results. There's only one district, if you win it you win the state. States with 3 electoral votes then function the same way they do with a winner takes all.
things would actually be EXTREMELY even this way, everyone would feel more represented, and we would see some interesting results. almost every race would feel more competitive.
there would probably be more voter turnout too!
Or we could just go with the national popular vote and bypass the gerrymandering.
@@nekad2000 national popular vote wouldn't bypass gerrymandering
Could you use this methodology to review potential outcomes for the 2000-2016 elections?
This is more close to a system you see in Parliamentary systems like Canada and the UK. In Canada you still saw the party with the overall popular vote lose. Cause a district which votes 90% for one party is treated the same as one where the winning party only gets a plurality, and in Canada's multiparty system that can as low as 30-40%. So as a result say Alberta's voice is by far and large ignored when Ontario and Quebec have so much more people. And due to the population imbalance elections are often called before polls even close in Alberta.
What website do you use in this video?
YAPms
I've always wondered about this.
A while back I made a spreadsheet simulating Presidential elections using a Proportional System as opposed to our current Winner Take All one. 2020 ended up with a very similar margin to what you present here, with Joe Biden winning 273 to Trump's 264, with 1 of California's going to Jo Jorgensen (which seems to be due to quirks with how I did the rounding).
For those who are curious, 2016 would have Clinton leading with 267 to Trump's 261, with Gary Johnson winning 9 and Jill Stein winning 1, probably resulting in the election being thrown to Congress, giving Trump the win. I really should get around to doing more with it.
I remember doing the exact same things. Jorgensen got like 1.1% of the vote in California which when multiplied by 55 gives 0.6 EVs, which rounds to 1. How did you deal with scenarios where the number of electoral votes awarded to the candidates didn't sum to the total EVs of the state? E.g. North Carolina: Trump gets 49.93% * 15 which is very close to 7.5 but rounds down to 7. Biden gets 48.59% which is around 7.3 which rounds down to 7 and then no third party got above the necessary 3.33% to receive 1 EV. My method resulted in Biden with 272, Trump 257 and Jorgensen 1, which as you can see means we have 8 phantom electoral votes.
@@armstrongtixid6873 I tried to make rounding favor the overall winner of the state, which was meant to offer an incentive for winning a state at large. Meaning in North Carolina, I rounded Trump's tally to 8 even though he would only receive 7.49 electoral votes.
What’s fair about Clinton leading yet being deposed by Congress?
Very interesting
Horrible! Imagine to gerrymander a presidential election.
The error in this is that he is combining the results of different elections. The electorate is different when the President is on the ballot vs. when he is not on the ballot.
Thank you for this analysis. As a resident of New Your state I often wondered if this system would be a better alternative. I do believe it would be except for the Achilles Heel, which is gerrymandering. It is currently going on in my 22nd district. The current proposal is to eliminate some GOP favored areas and adding a college town which would probably lean Dem. Brandon Williams (R) won by a hair last election and is probably doomed if the redistricting happens. The power brokers in the large urban areas will still call the shots.
Democrats won a seat in kansas btw
I'm just curious, if a state has only one congressional district and 2 extra delegates was awarded to the winner, wouldnt the winner of the congressional district win 3/3? How would you win the bonus two by losing the congressional district?
Yes, in that case It should be winner takes all.
Interesting
Has anyone run this model for 2016?
It would be interesting to run the election this way, but the gerrymandering of districts would eventually leave us with a similar problem than we have with the current system just on a different scale.
Hahaha I have to say this thumbnail is the opposite of click bait. I don’t even have to watch video, just came here to comment. Appreciate the info tho thanks boss
This would be the ideal method imo.
This should be how it is, but if they did actually change it to this then gerrymandering would be off the charts horrible
This method is a lot more seat clenching than the regular method. It makes the race so much closer.
I like this idea in a vacuum but I would be worried about the power that this method would give to the state's individual redistricting commissions. Most states have a partisan control of redistricting and thus gerrymandering can run rampant. With the congressional districts all having much more power beyond control of the house, it becomes important to make sure that this is not abused. I think that in the amendment to impose this method nation wide, we would need to mandate that states use an independent or bi-partisan redistricting method such as the one New Jersey employs.
Awesome. Brilliant content US politics. Massimo Zimmardi Italian support USA. He effectively Italy Thomas 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹.
The best part of this video is seeing how many competitive districts are there in the US & how many unrepresented districts would firmly go to one side or the other.
The main opposition to this method is "politicians would only campaign in California", which isn't true, as most red districts are always red & blue ones are always blue.
Very Interesting! ....that went down to the "wire" ☑🗳❌
Shared government right down the middle. Congress and the Senate should be divided equally 50/50 and the President must pick his VP from an opposition party. SCOTUS 50/ 50 Liberal and Conservative Justices. Then? People have to learn to work together and compromise.
this doesn't require a reform to the electoral college, every state can just decide to do what Nebraska and Maine already do.
This is brililant but the one tweek is that the presidential candidates party should win maine and nebraskas 2nd
I wonder what past election cycles would have looked like using this method.
Also Democrats won a district in Kansas
It would be kinda nice if my vote counted, as a resident of Washington state, lol
I like this reform 😊
Let gerrymandering decide! Great idea 💡 🎉 🤦🏼♂️
the EC was meant to be this way... in the first few (I forget how may off the top of my head) elections you didn't vote for president you voted for your senators and representatives then they voted for president...
Will need a way to handle gerrymandering gone wild.
This is better
What if everybody voted as an American? I guess that would be the same as the popular vote, and very very similar to any reasonably proportional voting system. So why are we comparing the real wildly distorted voting system to an imaginary wildly distorted voting system?
Congressional apportionment was the standard prior to 1824 election. Winner take all is what led us into national servitude.
I remember studying the Electoral College in college in early nineties and this method was discussed and I’ve always thought it better represented how the framers intended than the winner takes all method by state and agreed with then that a purely popular vote would give too much power to cities over the rural counties. Unfortunately Dems can do the math too and see that this method would be bad for them so it’s highly unlikely to change.
ONE PERSON
ONE VOTE
This system is interesting but I think it should be done more like ME and NE because ME-2 or AK-AL would vote trump and a democrat congressman while NE-2 or NY-3 would vote Biden and a republican congressman but that’s just a thought in order to not encourage down ballot voting
This method would be fairer.
The two-party system is very damaging because it encourages polarization and division. A multi-party system would be better, because people would have to co-operate. I wonder if Americans want changes.. I doubt it.
There's no question about Florida lol
Thankfully that is not how our system works
The whole purpose of the Electoral College is to make it so all the states that are not controlled by very heavily populated cities which tend to have very different political views/ideas then rural states. This was they cannot swap/control them. You do not want LA, NYC, Chicago, & etc controlling the whole country. That would disenfranchise most of the country which is not big cities. I can see benefits to the system you displayed BUT that may make people even less likely to vote. They will figure it is only for 2 electoral votes. Might as well as not have a Presidential election and determine the President by the number of Senators and Representees per party and if we had a third party we could have a coalition President/Prime Minstar.
I believe you made a mistake in Kansas, dems one a house district there
I highly doubt this format of picking POTUS based on congressional districts would pass due to GOP having greater chance to actually win. DEMS would not ratify an amendment doing this system. However I do like this format.
I don’t believe we need to change the electoral college system
Or just count votes.
Let's see this if we made gerrymandering illegal.
Weird ideal here - OUTLANDISH even - maybe...MAYBE we should make every vote count equally...100% of the time? Like...the fucking Popular Vote?
Just go with the popular votes. Why keep using outdated system and no matter if you live in a red or blue state, your vote shoule still matter regardless of how other ppl vote. If you go with a popular vote, just like 99.99999999999% of the countries around the world, you might get more ppl interested in politics and might make more ppl vote.
If you used this method, why would it be 538 total votes? It should be 436 (435 House seats +1 for DC as per the 23rd Amendment giving them equal representation in presidential elections). There are no "senators" that need be considered for this sort of contest, as they represent their whole state, not some arbitrary half of their state. Furthermore, it would still be a system that presumes that Land votes, rather than People. California lost an electoral vote in 2020, not because its population shrunk, but because its population didn't Grow Enough over the preceding ten years to justify other states not taking from their piece of the pie. Despite having added more people than any other State except for Texas during those ten years. It is theoretically impossible for California to gain seats due to the congressional system deciding they should cap the House at 435 total (because the building can't get any larger), but with this system, the cap could be whatever they deemed appropriate based on state populations. And if you're going that far to establish equitable representation...just do a popular vote? It would be faster and involve less math.
Dude that's how it works in Nebraska and Maine. Every states electoral count is based on how many members of Congress they have. Aka 2 senators plus the number of representatives
@@quickhistory8637 You should be able to tell I don't need an explanation on how our elections work now. I'm asking why a new system based on "congressional districts" would consider Senators who do not represent any congressional district. It's as arbitrary as awarding each state an extra count because they all have Governors
@@ZappBranniglenn This would be a compromise system. You have the proportional representation based on the congressional districts votes in the electoral college, and you can have the popular vote winner receive the two electoral college votes from the senators. Also, why shouldn't land be represented when it comes to voting? The people who own all of the land are more important than those who own less, considering they are the ones who are growing all your food and giving you the basic necessities you need to live.
@@user-hm1zb8js5i Your suggestion of a compromise system is interesting, but it is not the one outlined in this Video if you care to watch again. I don't know where you got that idea from.
And uhh most land owners are not farmers. I'm definitely not being fed by the most wealthy people in this country, I know that much. What I do know is that the state that grows the most food by far is California. Because there's an abundance of fertile land and people willing to work it. Your food probably comes from there.
Can't you just simply move to a popular vote 😭
So, a bunch of brainwashed elites on the coast can override my vote? No thanks.
This method is terrible as well, we need to move to a countrywide popular vote
No, we need to retain the EC as is. My vote will not be diluted by some brainwashed coastal elites.
@@jadapinkett1656You get one vote just like every “costal elite”. 😂 you just want your vote to be worth more.
Ah no
so instead of the electoral college you want to go with popular vote?
This system is clearly flawed with how gerrymandered certain states are. So yeah it should be the popular vote full stop.
This system is designed to protect of us from the tyranny of the majority.
All this proves is gerrymandering is real. ;)
Bananas
go GOP 24
MAGA
I love that democrats complain that this should be the method, and yet this method would cause them to lose
gerrrymandering is a thing
Trump. Fix
kansas 3rd is democrat isn't it
But- how do we stop the banana 🍌 republic way the democrats use to count and co trol the voting results? 😢
Dems won Kansas-3 so thats 5-1. Admittedly minor but still
Something that nobody is talking about is how illegals are now part of the census report, meaning that the more illegals you have, the more democrat districts you can have (even if they don't vote but they probably are in many cases). So until we do Trump's mass deportation plan, plus the SCOTUS rules that you have to exclude illegals from the count, and have a new census report, this would work to harm Republicans just as much as it might help them in other fair ways.
What are you talking about? I’m genuinely trying to find any info on this but there’s nothing.
@@jaybe9627 For the 2020 nationwide census, they removed the question asking if you are a citizen, allowing illegals to be counted without being able to differentiate between the two.
Why not just a popular vote? Dems have won the last 7 out of 8 general elections in the popular vote. Why does Wyoming get 3 entire electoral college representatives with a population of 500,000? The population population of Fresno is more than all of Wyoming .
So they get no representative in the House, correct?
And if Republicans had won the last 7 of 8 general elections, would you still be suggesting a strictly popular vote to determine the winner?
Furthermore, you seem to not understand that the minimum number of electors for any state will be 3, that is 2 senatorial electors, and 1 house elector. And if you wanna cry about one candidate getting "3 entire electoral college representatives" - then please explain how it's fair that in California, one candidate gets all 53 when at least 18-20 popularly voted for the other candidate? Why is it ok to disenfranchise republicans in a majority democrat state, but it's not ok to disenfranchise democrats in a low-population, majority Republican state like Wyoming?
I am in favor of any reform that benefits Republicans.
You have already lost all academic credibility but this is shameful and embarrassing.
Why? Because it offends you?
2020 alaska is wrong. palin lost in 2022.
Shut up troll
The only way to fix this is abolish the electoral college entirely and elect presidents by popular vote. Most other democracies do so. And in the event no one gets above 50%, then we do a runoff
No thanks
The cities are already a mess as is I don't want them picking the President every time.
we are not a democracy
You want big city dictatorship? We talking California policies in rural areas? Think again, the founders made the system perfect for how the US is laid out.
America isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Which is better. Why? Because every state is different and these lower populated states contribute just as much to the economy and deserve a proportional say.
91 criminal charges,, think about that.
My life was better when TRUMP was in there Gas Prices Are sky rocketing everything cost twice as much under biden - BUILD BACK BROKE 💔
LMAO....You really believe it!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
Shared government right down the middle. Congress and the Senate should be divided equally 50/50 and the President must pick his VP from an opposition party. SCOTUS 50/ 50 Liberal and Conservative Justices. Then? People have to learn to work together and compromise. Add in term limits
Nice Idea in a perfect world. I agree with term limits for all branches of Government. However, the house of Representatives can't be split 50/50 because there are 435 members, which is an odd number. Also, VP from the opposition party didn't work, ask John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson who both had opposition Party VP's. Since the VP is the tie breaking Vote in the Senate that means the the VP could potentially vote against the President.