The Democrat's built in Electoral Advantage in one handy chart.

[Slutty Mathlete]

So I originally posted this chart in my polling thread, but it's interesting enough that I think that it deserves its own thread.

 

So this chart organizes all of the states by how often they have gone with the Dem's or the Rep's in the last 6 elections.

 

 

So as you know it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. As you can see in the chart, just the states that have gone for D every single time add up to 242 already. If add the states that have gone Blue every time but one, that puts the D's at 257. They then just need one state (Ohio or Florida) from the next two columns to secure the Presidency.

 

The R's on the other hand need all the states that always go for them (102 EV's), and the states that went for them all but once (56 EV's), the states have voted for the 2/3's of the time (61 EV's), and the one's they have only one 50% of the time (38 EV's) just to get the 257. To win they must then take Ohio or 3/4 of Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.

 

So you can see that It's a much higher climb for Republicans in Presidential Elections even when their candidate is not someone like Donald Trump.

[양 지]

They should really change that. I mean I disagree with so much of what the Republicans are saying rn in general but it's still unfair, plus the Democrats could be the ones with the nonsensical ideas in the future.

[Zenist]

I think USA is fucked whoever gets into position.

 

And that's all because of Left's fault of going WAAY too far with their so-called "Social Justice" oppression of free speech that gave rise to Donald Trump.

 

If Republicans got someone that are more Christian conservative than Trump, that guy would have easily defeated Hillary. 

[Rohan Kishibe]

I mean it's not the democrat's fault the republican party is in such shambles and barely anyone wants to vote for the mess of candidates they elect.

[Fate(s)fly]

I respect democrats & republicans but once Trump or Killary's elected for presidency I'm fleeing the country & moving to Canada.

[Slutty Mathlete]

They should really change that. I mean I disagree with so much of what the Republicans are saying rn in general but it's still unfair, plus the Democrats could be the ones with the nonsensical ideas in the future.

I have always been in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, and going by the Popular vote. The 30% of Dem voters in Oklahoma and Rep voters in Vermont deserve to have their votes matter, and right now they don't.

 

I think USA is fucked whoever gets into position.

 

And that's all because of Left's fault of going WAAY too far with their so-called "Social Justice" oppression of free speech that gave rise to Donald Trump.

 

If Republicans got someone that are more Christian conservative than Trump, that guy would have easily defeated Hillary.

 

Someone more Christian conservative would likely lose even worse. The reason the chart is as lopsided as it is, is because the demographics have shifted in this country. It's impossible to win in this country if you can't win Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Atheists, Jews, and LGBT. All of those are being won by Dems now. There simply are not enough white Christian Males in the US anymore to out vote everyone else. That's why the GOP has switched their strategy to trying to keep many of those groups from voting. That's why they win so big in off year elections when many Dem constituencies don't turn out reliably.

[Ogre Shrek]

Built-in electoral advantage?

 

Reminds me of this country that has two burger chains. One serves burgers that come with 100 per cent beef patties, "special sauce", iceberg lettuce, American cheese, pickles, and onions in between fragrant sesame seed buns. The other serves an unpalatable tofu substitute within limp soggy buns.

 

Needless to say, the first burger chain does a roaring business country-wide, whilst the bulk of customers of the other burger chain comprises the tofu suppliers and their families.

 

Should the second burger chain complain about the built-in bias in the country for palatable food, and insists that something be done to make the country's citizens eat more tofu burgers? Or should the second burger chain look at what it is selling and revamp its menu to make it more attractive to diners?

[Slutty Mathlete]

Built-in electoral advantage?

Reminds me of this country that has two burger chains. One serves burgers that come with 100 per cent beef patties, "special sauce", iceberg lettuce, American cheese, pickles, and onions in between fragrant sesame seed buns. The other serves an unpalatable tofu substitute within limp soggy buns.

Needless to say, the first burger chain does a roaring business country-wide, whilst the bulk of customers of the other burger chain comprises the tofu suppliers and their families.

Should the second burger chain complain about the built-in bias in the country for palatable food, and insists that something be done to make the country's citizens eat more tofu burgers? Or should the second burger chain look at what it is selling and revamp its menu to make it more attractive to diners?

Heh!

[Frogurt]

I think it's also worth noting that Trump only leads by 6 in Texas. While that may sound like a sizeable lead, Republicans usually win that state by much more than that. If Republicans ever lose Texas then there goes their chance at ever winning the presidency again under the electoral college. It's pretty much the only state they can count on winning that has a sizeable amount of electoral votes. That's why they love cutting early voting hours and creating ridiculous "voter ID" laws; they can't win if people actually show up to vote, so they just make it harder for people (namely black Democrats) to vote.