There’s certainly a case to be made for Michigan, although it kind of only works if you ignore other 3rd party candidates. Trump’s margin was only slightly more than 10K votes.
Gary Johnson had 172K
Jill Stein had 51K
Evan McMullin had 8K
Similar stories in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
So if Gary Johnson still ran but the Green Party simply didn’t field a candidate… maybe but a bunch of those Green folks were “Jill, never Hill”ers, so you certainly can’t assume all of those votes would have gone to Clinton. And in aggregate there were certainly more right-leaning 3rd party voters than left-leaning 3rd party voters.
You know, that happens when one major party runs a sane candidate and the other doesn’t.
I think he pulled a lot more from the right than the left. And Evan McMullin was pulling exclusively from the right, although he didn’t get nearly as many votes, outside of Utah anyway.
I voted for Gary Johnson, but it made no difference. The candidate who won my state had an outright majority and it wasn’t particularly close. So I don’t regret my vote. Possibly others do.
But Florida was decided by 537 votes where Nadar received over 97,000. Most people assume absent Nadar on the ballot Gore would have gotten quite a bit more than the 537 needed from those 97K.
New Hampshire 2000 is a little less clear but also likely would have flipped to Gore.
Also unlike 2016 where Johnson pulled votes from the traditional R pool at least as much as Stein and maybe more, there were no meaningful votes to a candidate that would have flipped votes to Bush to offset the large Nadar block in 2000 as Buchannan only got like 13K votes.
Well, the SoS is the one in charge of implementing the maps before the next election. If he refuses to implement the results of a lower court ruling, then the courts would decide the remedy. Not sure how not seating reps would cure insufficient representation. I’d be tempted to take the election results and regroup by new map (like party for like party) if i were a judge and election was run ignoring the order for the new map.
It will be interesting seeing how the most conservative and in the bag court in over 100 years told them that it was a bridge too far even for them if the actually will redraw the lines or not.
The special master has presented 3 maps meeting the courts instructions. The ADC has objected, presenting its own plan. My guess is that its version of district 2 favors the ADC’s home turf. There is plenty of primary drama in that region.
I believe the court will rule relatively quickly to prevent the SoS from saying “too close to election to implement”
Seems reasonable, since a lot of states won’t let someone run as independent if you ran in a party’s primary.
So, which states will he be concentrating on, in order to bring the chaos to the US House?
Or will he just be a spoiler, getting 10% max of a state’s votes, whose electoral votes STILL go to the candidate with the most votes, majority or not.
TAN: And THIS damned rule should be rectified. If a candidate does not get a majority of the votes in a state, then electoral votes should be split among candidates, according to whatever a better rule exists, as this better represents the state’s citizens’ choices.
I agree, but I wouldn’t put in the qualifier “If a candidate does not get a majority of the votes in a state,”.
Just divide the electoral votes proportionally to the overall vote total in the state.
That makes a lot of sense to me. It will also never happen because the party that can change laws is also the party that benefits from 100% allocation.