![]() However, this Is not the optimal solution. Since the distribution of electoral votes has not changed since 2016, that could also be a winning combination for the 2020 election. They skipped Washington, 12 electoral votes, and substituted New Jersey, 14, because that made the total electoral votes exactly 270. Take all the territories with the minimum 3 electoral votes, then add those with 4, then 5, and so on. How did they find this supposedly optimal collection of territories? Well, their algorithm was really very simple. We have repeated the calculation using the same set of territories but based on 2016 voting numbers 4, and based on the same assumptions, this could lead to a candidate winning 270 electoral votes with just 22.8% of the popular vote. Their scenario was based on the successful candidate winning the following territories totaling exactly 270 electoral votes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. In particular, a report by National Public Radio, NPR 3 published just before the 2016 election, described a scenario by which a candidate could win the election with just 23.1% of the popular vote, based on numbers of votes cast during the 2012 election. Nevertheless, we include percentages required to get to 269 electoral votes in parentheses to account for this possibility.Ī number of previous articles have considered this extreme scenario. In theory, it is possible for a candidate to win with 269 electoral votes, in which case the tie would be split by a special vote of the House of Representatives, but this would be unprecedented and would almost certainly trigger further constitutional challenges, so we are ignoring this as a practical winning strategy. The candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes becomes the next president. 49 territories 2 are “winner-take-all,” that is to say the winner of the popular vote in the territory gets all of the territory’s electoral votes, but for simplicity we treat all territories as winner take all, this doesn’t change the presented results. Eight territories have the minimal three electoral votes, while California has 55. Each territory gets a minimum of three electoral votes, with the rest of the 385 electoral votes assigned on the basis of population, DC cannot have more votes than any state – this caveat will come up later. all have electoral votes which total to 538. While the US has 50 states, there are 51 territories of interest, as the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Though these outcomes are unrealistic, probing the boundaries may help us better understand the broader system.įirst, let’s introduce how the electoral college works. The answer also hinges on the practically implausible scenario of one candidate winning several states by exactly one vote, and losing several others by the maximum possible margin. This seemingly simple question can result in different answers depending on your assumptions about the universe of eligible voters, third-party vote share, and the percentage of truly “up-for-grabs” voters. In both 20, the popular vote winner won by less than three percentage points, but would it be possible to lose the popular vote by, say, ten percentage points and still win the election? What about 20%? Whether you refer to this extreme outcome as “unfair” or “efficient,” it leads to the same question: what is the smallest percentage of the popular vote a candidate can garner while still winning the election? The extremes of this phenomenon, however, have been examined less thoroughly. The political implications of the disparity between popular vote share and electoral college outcomes have been discussed at length. The remaining votes went to third-party candidates. ![]() ![]() Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote to Al Gore’s 48.4%, and in 2016, Donald Trump received 46.1% to Hillary Clinton’s 48.2%. Presidential elections, the winner received fewer popular votes than his opponent. Benjamin Leinwand, Puyao Ge, Vidyadhar Kulkarni, Richard Smith 1 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |