Good question. It would be difficult to calculate. I would start by examining electoral districts to find the ones where voters from the popular majority party in a state have been concentrated by gerrymandered so they will heavily win those districts but lose in most others, enabling the minority party to win that state. Then determine how many votes the gerrymandered party would need to overcome this by winning some of those other districts. Then do this for the whole country and add up the total.
What does gerrymandering have to do with winning a state’s electoral college delegates outside of Maine and Nebraska? States award all their delegates to the winner of the states popular vote.
Popular vote doesn’t have a meaningful role in determining the presidency, but all states except Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes according to it. Well alrighty then, you have yourself a good day!
81 million Democrats voted in 2020, but only 71 million this year. Trump won by 3.5 million.
This is the national popular vote.
When states allocate their electoral votes, it’s based upon the state’s popular vote. So if a candidate gets the most votes in California. If only one person votes for that candidate in California, the candidate gets all the electoral votes in California. If everyone votes in Alaska, the winning candidate only gets Alaska’s electoral votes.
The national popular vote isn’t meaningful in determining the president. The only determinant is the electoral college.
Sure, the national popular vote total doesn’t determine the presidency, but it’s also not “meaningless”. The popular vote winner has won the presidency all but 5x in US history.
I’m just gonna keep hammering this in for a while. 81 million Democrats voted in 2020, but only 71 million this year. Trump won by 3.5 million. But hey, at least all you righteous little angels aren’t “complicit in genocide”, right? Think about that while you polish your halos. YOU did this.
In our electoral college system the total national vote isn’t the cause of a president getting elected. Many of the people who didn’t turn out were in states that were already considered Democrat strongholds such as New Jersey. Only seven states mattered. They were close enough that the polls weren’t able to tell who was in the lead. Both Republicans and Democrats spent a lot of money on spreading their message and getting out the vote. These seven states had record or near record turn out.
In simple terms, if those 10 million Democrats had voted for Kamala there’s a good chance she would have won. It would depend on where those people live, but even if you simplemindedly divide 10 million by 50 you average 200k votes in every state. This is far more than Trump’s lead in any of the swing states, and she only would have had to win a few of them.
Good question. It would be difficult to calculate. I would start by examining electoral districts to find the ones where voters from the popular majority party in a state have been concentrated by gerrymandered so they will heavily win those districts but lose in most others, enabling the minority party to win that state. Then determine how many votes the gerrymandered party would need to overcome this by winning some of those other districts. Then do this for the whole country and add up the total.
What does gerrymandering have to do with winning a state’s electoral college delegates outside of Maine and Nebraska? States award all their delegates to the winner of the states popular vote.
Ok then I’m wrong. How would you estimate it?
I wouldn’t. Popular vote doesn’t have a meaningful role in determining the presidency.
Popular vote doesn’t have a meaningful role in determining the presidency, but all states except Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes according to it. Well alrighty then, you have yourself a good day!
This is the national popular vote.
When states allocate their electoral votes, it’s based upon the state’s popular vote. So if a candidate gets the most votes in California. If only one person votes for that candidate in California, the candidate gets all the electoral votes in California. If everyone votes in Alaska, the winning candidate only gets Alaska’s electoral votes.
The national popular vote isn’t meaningful in determining the president. The only determinant is the electoral college.
Sure, the national popular vote total doesn’t determine the presidency, but it’s also not “meaningless”. The popular vote winner has won the presidency all but 5x in US history.
I feel like we’ve strayed very far from the original statement.
In our electoral college system the total national vote isn’t the cause of a president getting elected. Many of the people who didn’t turn out were in states that were already considered Democrat strongholds such as New Jersey. Only seven states mattered. They were close enough that the polls weren’t able to tell who was in the lead. Both Republicans and Democrats spent a lot of money on spreading their message and getting out the vote. These seven states had record or near record turn out.
In light of all of this, what is your argument?
In simple terms, if those 10 million Democrats had voted for Kamala there’s a good chance she would have won. It would depend on where those people live, but even if you simplemindedly divide 10 million by 50 you average 200k votes in every state. This is far more than Trump’s lead in any of the swing states, and she only would have had to win a few of them.