Education, Not Income, Predicted Trump's Victory

[trdsf]

I deeply regret saying that you are in error.  I respect you very much. 

The Electoral College is number of House and Senate seats assigned to each State.  The States are divided into Representative Districts.  Each State has 2 Senators but varying numbers of Representatives.

The Gerrymandering does not affect Senators, being fixed at 2 per State.  Gerrymandering affects Representatives.  And The Electoral College mostly counts those Representatives.

It is the lines of the Representative Districts where all the problems exist.  I wish I could post a picture...  The gist is that a 60-40 State can be divided up for the 60% party to win all districts, just more than half, or none.  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-is-the-best-explanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.b063b467189d)

Sorry for the long link.

I think we might be talking past each other.

The borders of the districts have nothing to do with to whom the Electoral College votes are assigned, with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska.  Gerrymandering affects who gets sent to the House; the Electoral College is simply a total count of the number of House seats assigned to the state, plus two.

For example, in Washington State, Hillary won seven Congressional districts and The Creature won three, but Hillary was awarded all twelve EVs for that state.  Himself won 14 districts in Florida and Hillary won 13, but they didn't split those evenly, The Creature got all 29 EVs.  He won 6 of Virginia's districts and Hillary won five... but she won the state because the only thing that counts (again, outside of NE and ME) is the total statewide count.  The actual construction of the districts is not relevant to the Electoral College.

At the federal level, gerrymandering threatens the House, not the Presidency.  It gives you situations where Democrats statewide win 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania, but only 5 of the 18 representatives.  And it desperately needs to be addressed.

[Baruch]

No, actually, outside of Maine and Nebraska, the actual congressional districts have nothing to do with it beyond the total number of them per state.  It doesn't matter how twisted the individual districts are because outside of those two exceptions, all states are winner-take-all without any regard to who's won each individual district.

A parliamentary system with proportional representation, would be more ... representative.  There would be more Greens and Libertarians in office.

[Cavebear]

I think we might be talking past each other.

The borders of the districts have nothing to do with to whom the Electoral College votes are assigned, with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska.  Gerrymandering affects who gets sent to the House; the Electoral College is simply a total count of the number of House seats assigned to the state, plus two.

For example, in Washington State, Hillary won seven Congressional districts and The Creature won three, but Hillary was awarded all twelve EVs for that state.  Himself won 14 districts in Florida and Hillary won 13, but they didn't split those evenly, The Creature got all 29 EVs.  He won 6 of Virginia's districts and Hillary won five... but she won the state because the only thing that counts (again, outside of NE and ME) is the total statewide count.  The actual construction of the districts is not relevant to the Electoral College.

At the federal level, gerrymandering threatens the House, not the Presidency.  It gives you situations where Democrats statewide win 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania, but only 5 of the 18 representatives.  And it desperately needs to be addressed.

Well yes, you're right in the practical results.  But my point is that the gerrymandering decides who the State electors are to begin with.  My apologies for not going into the weeds about that.

[trdsf]

Well yes, you're right in the practical results.  But my point is that the gerrymandering decides who the State electors are to begin with.  My apologies for not going into the weeds about that.

Most electoral college delegates are chosen at-large at each party's state convention; the rules vary from state to state -- I glanced over it quickly and the only one I spotted that even requires electors to be chosen one from each Congressional district is Tennessee, and again, all parties qualified on that state's ballot will send a full slate to the Secretary of State, not just the majority party of that district.  On the other hand, if the Ohio' Democrats or Republicans or Greens wanted to, there's nothing in state law preventing either of them from selecting a list of 18 Columbusites, or 18 Toledoans, or 18 Wapakonetans.  Generally speaking, the party chooses party members

So even the reddest of red districts will be "represented" by a blue elector if a Democrat carries their state, if they have the winner-take-all system, just like even though my district has been gerrymandered extremely blue, since Himself carried the state and my district, "my" elector cast his ballot for The Creature.  The structure of the individual districts doesn't matter, just the overall count of them.

[Cavebear]

Most electoral college delegates are chosen at-large at each party's state convention; the rules vary from state to state -- I glanced over it quickly and the only one I spotted that even requires electors to be chosen one from each Congressional district is Tennessee, and again, all parties qualified on that state's ballot will send a full slate to the Secretary of State, not just the majority party of that district.  On the other hand, if the Ohio' Democrats or Republicans or Greens wanted to, there's nothing in state law preventing either of them from selecting a list of 18 Columbusites, or 18 Toledoans, or 18 Wapakonetans.  Generally speaking, the party chooses party members

So even the reddest of red districts will be "represented" by a blue elector if a Democrat carries their state, if they have the winner-take-all system, just like even though my district has been gerrymandered extremely blue, since Himself carried the state and my district, "my" elector cast his ballot for The Creature.  The structure of the individual districts doesn't matter, just the overall count of them.

But, but, but...  don't we vote for the Electors?  From our representaives districts?

[trdsf]

But, but, but...  don't we vote for the Electors?  From our representaives districts?

No, outside of Maine and Nebraska, you're effectively voting for the entire statewide slate.

[Cavebear]

No, outside of Maine and Nebraska, you're effectively voting for the entire statewide slate.

I suspect they didn't quite explain this well in my political science classes...

I have to think about this.

[trdsf]

I suspect they didn't quite explain this well in my political science classes...

I have to think about this.

None of this takes away from your points about gerrymandering itself; it just works on a different branch of government.

Now, there's a good point to be made that the Electoral College itself is a form of gerrymandering.  When I get home, I'll find the numbers I ran on it.  Essentially, a hell of a free ride is built in for the GOP.

[trdsf]

Ah, excellent, I found my writeup on the Electoral College that I did on another forum (knitting, of all things):

Let’s take all the states that have 3, 4, or 5 EVs and color code them appropriately along the red-state/blue-state divide: Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have 3 each; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have 4; and Nebraska, New Mexico and West Virginia each have five, and have a total of 59 electoral votes between them. So we should be looking at a total population comparable to California’s 55.

And we’re not.

The total population of those 16 states is about 21.5 million, compared to California’s 39.1 million.

So let’s keep adding states until we reach close enough to 39.1 million. Conveniently enough, that’s all six states that have six electoral votes: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and Utah, for a total of 39.3 million.

And for that 39.3 million population, these states get 95 electoral votes to California’s 55 for their 39.1 million.  Out of those, 53 EVs are reliably Republican-leaning, 20 swing, and 22 are reliably Democratic.  So much for the "advantage" Democrats supposedly have.  The Republicans have as much in their pocket already and a fair chance at another 20 EVs on far less population than that one reliably blue state.

The less-populated states have drastically higher vote value.  North and South Dakota together cast a total of about 714000 votes in the last Presidential election among all candidates, and between both states awarded 6 EVs.  New Hampshire cast 744000 votes for all candidates -- more than those two states combined -- and awarded only 4 EVs.  Nevada awarded 6EVs for 1.125 million votes; Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota between them cast 1.289 million ballots... and awarded 12 EVs total.

This is the tyranny of the minority.  And before anyone mentions that the 12 largest states could between them decide an election, remember that only happens if you get a candidate that pleases both Texas and California and Georgia and New York and Florida and Illinois and North Carolina and New Jersey and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan.  Highly unlikely -- the last few times it happened, it was Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, and Roosevelt in '36 (Johnson didn't carry Georgia in '64) -- all unusual years under unusual circumstances.

National popular vote -- eliminating the electoral college entirely -- means that even in the reddest of red states, your blue vote matters, and in the bluest of blue states, your red vote matters. It means that losing a state 55-45 is better than losing it 60-40, so it becomes worth it to campaign in the other party’s ‘firewall’ states. It means winning a state 55-45 is better than winning it 51-49, so it becomes worth it to campaign in a party’s own firewalls.

[Cavebear]

Ah, excellent, I found my writeup on the Electoral College that I did on another forum (knitting, of all things):

Let’s take all the states that have 3, 4, or 5 EVs and color code them appropriately along the red-state/blue-state divide: Alaska, Delaware, DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have 3 each; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have 4; and Nebraska, New Mexico and West Virginia each have five, and have a total of 59 electoral votes between them. So we should be looking at a total population comparable to California’s 55.

And we’re not.

The total population of those 16 states is about 21.5 million, compared to California’s 39.1 million.

So let’s keep adding states until we reach close enough to 39.1 million. Conveniently enough, that’s all six states that have six electoral votes: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and Utah, for a total of 39.3 million.

And for that 39.3 million population, these states get 95 electoral votes to California’s 55 for their 39.1 million.  Out of those, 53 EVs are reliably Republican-leaning, 20 swing, and 22 are reliably Democratic.  So much for the "advantage" Democrats supposedly have.  The Republicans have as much in their pocket already and a fair chance at another 20 EVs on far less population than that one reliably blue state.

The less-populated states have drastically higher vote value.  North and South Dakota together cast a total of about 714000 votes in the last Presidential election among all candidates, and between both states awarded 6 EVs.  New Hampshire cast 744000 votes for all candidates -- more than those two states combined -- and awarded only 4 EVs.  Nevada awarded 6EVs for 1.125 million votes; Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota between them cast 1.289 million ballots... and awarded 12 EVs total.

This is the tyranny of the minority.  And before anyone mentions that the 12 largest states could between them decide an election, remember that only happens if you get a candidate that pleases both Texas and California and Georgia and New York and Florida and Illinois and North Carolina and New Jersey and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan.  Highly unlikely -- the last few times it happened, it was Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, and Roosevelt in '36 (Johnson didn't carry Georgia in '64) -- all unusual years under unusual circumstances.

National popular vote -- eliminating the electoral college entirely -- means that even in the reddest of red states, your blue vote matters, and in the bluest of blue states, your red vote matters. It means that losing a state 55-45 is better than losing it 60-40, so it becomes worth it to campaign in the other party’s ‘firewall’ states. It means winning a state 55-45 is better than winning it 51-49, so it becomes worth it to campaign in a party’s own firewalls.

Well, that's what I was TRYING to explain.  And thank you for the better discussion of it. 

[trdsf]

Following up on the discussion of gerrymandering, I see that FiveThirtyEight has an interactive redistricting atlas.  Interesting to play with.

[Cavebear]

Following up on the discussion of gerrymandering, I see that FiveThirtyEight has an interactive redistricting atlas.  Interesting to play with.

I looked at the maps and went highly in favor of highly competitive districts.  That would drag both parties kicking and screaming toward the center. 

[trdsf]

I looked at the maps and went highly in favor of highly competitive districts.  That would drag both parties kicking and screaming toward the center.

My preferred map was the one that best reflected the electorate, although the competitive one was my second choice.  The competitive one is too easily swung by a one-off event or an overload of outside spending; like the highly competitive map, the partisan makeup map also starts off both parties nearly at par with each other but with two significant differences.  First, it takes into account the known voting patterns of the state; and second, with fewer highly competitive seats it's less sensitive to how much the Koch brothers et al. feel like spending that year or to external one-off events.  And it makes events like the 2012 Pennsylvania Congressional elections, where the Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote but ended up getting only 5 of the 18 seats, almost impossible.

[orcus]

I think the (R)'s will always win the 'gerrymandering' fight. Districts are segmented according to a combination of two variables, population and area control. (D)'s and (R)'s are approximately equal with respect to population, meaning that variable isn't really dominated that much by either. The (R)'s on the other hand have a massive advantage in area control, since (D)'s don't farm. A victory in one important variable vs a tie in another means a win for the (R)'s.

This is balanced out by the fact that (D)'s are congregated in cities, meaning that they have a lot more opportunities to conspire against everyone else. So it's basically really a war between the politics of a Republic and the politics of an oligarchy. Or a theocracy, if the hilarity at Evergreen State College is any indication.

[Jason78]

Last week, my colleague Nate Silver used census data to show that education, not income, determined the shift from Republican to Democratic votes in the 2016 election. It turns out that the exit polls can also help us confirm and expand that thesis.

Correlation =/= Causation.