Electoral Vote Inequality per gun states vs. control states (REVISED)

[jimmy the one]

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2016, 11:26 AM - Edit history (2)

OK, some of you see thru my ruse; I'm trying to keep it on topic by making it gun states vs control states, but it isn't really, it's just the disparity between red states & blue states when it comes to the electoral votes & subsequent electoral college.
So if you need lock it FL don't worry about offending, I'll understand; just thought it would be good for fellows on this forum to see how disadvantageous the obsolete electoral college is for democrats. Reposted from my exact same general discussion thread I started minutes ago, copied & pasted.

Reliably Red States enjoy approx 7% advantage (revised over original post) over reliably blue states in the electoral college distribution rate.

23 Reliably red states, Electoral Votes, then EVs per million: Alabama 9, 1.85 EVs/million; Alaska 3, 4.05/million; Arizona 11, 1.59; Arkansas 6, 2.00; Georgia 16, 1.55; Idaho 4, 2.38; Indiana 11, 1.66; Kansas 6, 2.05; Kentucky 8, 1.80; Louis 8, 1.71; Mississ 6, 2.00; Missouri 10, 1.64; Montana 3, 2.88; Nebraska 5, 2.62; NDak 3, 3.90; Okla 7, 1.78; SCarolina 9, 1.81; SDak 3, 3.48; Tenn 11, 1.65; Texas 38, 1.36; Utah 6, 1.97; WVa 5, 2.72; Wyoming 3, 5.10

15 Reliably blue states, EVs, then EVs per million: Calif 55, 1.39; Conn 7, 1.95; Delaware 3, 3.14; Hawaii 4, 2.78; Illinois 20, 1.56; Maryland 10, 1.66; Massachusetts 11, 1.61; Minnes 10, 1.81; New Jersey 14, 1.56; NMex 5, 2.40; New York 29, 1.46; Oregon 7, 1.71; RI 4, 3.77; Vermont 3, 4.80; Washington 12, 1.65

12 battleground states, including traitors michigan & pennsy this year: Colorado 9, 1.62 (albeit becoming reliably blue); Florida 29, 1.40; Iowa 6, 1.91; Maine 4, 3.00; Michigan 16, 1.61; Nevada 6, 2.04; New Hampshire 4, 3.00; NCarolina 15, 1.48; Ohio 18, 1.55; Pennsy 20, 1.56; Virginia 13, 1.54; Wisconsin 10, 1.73:

Blue state Electoral Votes per million = 1.65 EVs/million
Red state Electoral Votes per million = 1.79 EVs/million
Purple battleground states EVs per million = ~1.60 EVs/million

Red states enjoy ~7% more electoral votes per million people, than blue states do.
Traitorous Michigan & Pennsy, downgraded to purple states this year, had they been included in the blue state count, would've made it slightly worse for dems, but not significantly.

Purple battleground states are immaterial, since they fluctuate and benefit either side, so they cannot be included in a meaningful comparison.
Less populated states get inordinately higher EVs/million than the rest, but quirky enough, there is not much advantage gained by either red or blue sides, since they pretty much balance each other out, with red Alaska 4.05, Montana 2.88, NDakota 3.90, SDakota 3.48 balanced out by blue Delaware 3.14, Hawaii 2.78, Rhode Island 3.77, & Vermont 4.80, with purple new hampshire 3.00.
Texas gets the least EVs per million with 1.36, just barely & at parity with Florida 1.40, California 1.39, and New York 1.46, the four largest states by population. Wyoming is highest EV/mill at 5.10.

Edit: My original OP used one of two different methods I used to determine EVs per million, but alas the one I posted did not provide what I said it did. I omitted 'parity' states from the method I posted, which mislead. I did this a month back & forgot the two methods in my haste to post it. Mea Culpa, Confiteor & Apologies.
The imbalance is not as pronounced as I first reported, but red states do indeed benefit from an electoral college disparity.
However, rather than being 80% of a red state voter, the rate is about 93% of a red state voter. Far less dramatic for sure, but still there.

[flamin lib]

1. Wow. Good analysis. This took a lot of work and I really appreciate this much effort.

Kinda makes a good case for a challenge of, as applied with winner take all, violating the one man/one vote concept. Of course it's ensconced in the constitution so short of an amendment (fat chance) the best we can hope for is enough states passing 'national popular vote' laws or, my choice, proportional assignment of EVs in each state.

Good work.

[guillaumeb]

2. Recommended in any forum.

But this inequality, like the 2 Senators per state concept, was intended to benefit the slave states. Given that the slave states had huge numbers of non-qualified black males, there had to be a way to balance the North/South tension. So the 3/5ths compromise allowed for greater representation in the House and the 2 Senators per state allowed for greater influence in the Senate. And given how the Electoral College is constituted, this guaranteed that the slave states would have more influence.

Plus, on the subject of firearms, the first police force was constituted in S. Carolina as a slave patrol, and gun ownership was mandated for free whites. So we have the confluence of gun ownership, a police force/slave patrol, and more Southern power in government.

[jimmy the one]

3. trump is a national disgrace

guillaume: Recommended in any forum.

Well I'm a bit abashed at my forced revision due a bit of carelessness on my part. Reread OP.

the 3/5ths compromise allowed for greater representation in the House and the 2 Senators per state allowed for greater influence in the Senate. And given how the Electoral College is constituted, this guaranteed that the slave states would have more influence.

I think you have it right, but to check, let me run it past you. The 3/5 'slave per white southerner' was insisted upon by northerners, so as to blunt the greater influence southern states would get in the house of representatives if a slave was counted as a full white man. Since pro slavery representatives would be elected based on full population, but they would have little cause to truly represent anything slaves wanted.

Say there were 500,000 slaves in georgia (dunno factuals at the moment), and 1,000,000 whites, full representation would be 1.5 million people in georgia. At one representatives per 250,000, georgia would get 6 reps with full representation, almost all of which would be pro slavery reps, since slaves could not vote they were in effect disenfranchised while still being used in the population totals.
Then the Mo. compromise occurred where a slave was 3/5 a white man. In our above example, only 300,000 slaves were counted (3/5 x 500,000 slaves), for a grand total of 1,300,000 yielding 5 representatives rather than 6.
This was done to blunt the pro slavery representatives sent to the house of reps. Obviously 5 is less than 6, so white abolitionists in congress could have a greater say, or at least not be overwhelmed by pro slavery southerners.
So while the 3/5 slave per white man is too often deemed an insult to black people in the early 1800's, it in fact was beneficial to slaves in their fight for equaler rights, and pushed thru in good part by abolitionists, and opposed by slave owning southerners.

Oh, btw, guillaume, my plans are to stay up in canada near montreal for 2, 3, or 4 months next summer, & look into cabin type homes about ottawa or montreal.
Don't want to listen to an obnoxious anal retentive bombastic windbag president for next 4 maybe 8 years. He is a national disgrace. Makes me sick to watch news anymore, what with saturation coverage of this narcissistic con artist, so I'm cancelling cable tv after american football season over. Almost all the good things democrats have accomplished or started will be either dismantled or walked back, to the country's detriment.
By the end of Bighead's term in 2020, a possibility the supreme court could be 7 right wing justices to 2 liberals, with at least 5-4 right wing, so any substantive federal gun control efforts are doomed from the start, only states will be able to go with it. National concealed reciprocity is the next real threat, I only hope there are enough dem senators to block it with a filibuster.

[guillaumeb]

4. He is a GOP disgrace.

The Southern States wanted to have Representatives proportional to their population, and they also wanted to count slaves in that census.

And in the interests of unity, the North agreed to the various compromises.

An interesting book on the subject is:
"Negro President" Jefferson and the Slave Power, by Garry Wills. The author talks of why Jefferson acted as he did, with the premise that Jefferson acted to preserve the power of the slave owners.

As to summer plans, Ottawa is a beautiful area, as is Montreal. If you choose Montreal, there are a large number of English speakers in that area, especially in Westmount, but be aware that signage and advertising is, per law, in French.

On the SCOTUS issue, my hope is that there are no other vacancies prior to Warren winning in 2020.