Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Historical Presidential Elections in Maps

34 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Thought this was pretty cool:

[url="http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/"]http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/[/url]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That's amazing. In 1976 Texas and the rest of the South was blue and California and Illinois were red. California didn't turn blue until 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That is an awesome site, pie for sharing.

I noticed that George Clinton was in the running in 1792, I had no idea he was so old!!!

[img]http://revivalist.okayplayer.com/wp-content/uploads/George-Clinton-nv01.jpeg[/img]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Lol @ 1936 and 1984...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='YourMomsLover' timestamp='1352476450' post='1989146']
Lol @ 1936 and 1984...
[/quote]

Yeah 1936 def stood out haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Reagan beat the snot out of everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Republicans and Democrats did a flipflop in the 50's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's good to see that not long ago candidates and issues mattered. Not it seems about 75% of states have already decided how they will vote in each election including 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='theyhateme45' timestamp='1352477871' post='1989192']
It's good to see that not long ago candidates and issues mattered. Not it seems about 75% of states have already decided how they will vote in each election including 2016.
[/quote]


A few hundred thousand folks, in some specific areas make the call.

It sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

^ this. time to lose the electoral college.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='mmmbeans' timestamp='1352478837' post='1989225']
^ this. time to lose the electoral college.
[/quote]

Or a electoral college reform... Maybe X vote % in a state gets certain amount of the electoral votes for that state... or award the electoral votes by US representative districts then give the other 2 electoral votes to the winner of the states popular vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Looking at 1912 reminded me how much of a boss Teddy was. Told both parties to f off and ran winning that many states.

I still think something like that could happen in the pacific northwest + Cali. with the right type of big player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Squirrel' timestamp='1352477855' post='1989191']
Republicans and Democrats did a flipflop in the 50's.
[/quote]

This is when the political right began it's retarded marriage with the religious right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

1972:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7z192I-mQM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='theyhateme45' timestamp='1352480531' post='1989265']

Or a electoral college reform... Maybe X vote % in a state gets certain amount of the electoral votes for that state... or award the electoral votes by US representative districts then give the other 2 electoral votes to the winner of the states popular vote.
[/quote]

I would be in favor of this. Too much control in certain areas of the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='theyhateme45' timestamp='1352480531' post='1989265']

Or a electoral college reform... Maybe X vote % in a state gets certain amount of the electoral votes for that state... or award the electoral votes by US representative districts then give the other 2 electoral votes to the winner of the states popular vote.
[/quote]
That's silly overcomplication. The electoral college is a holdover from when we didn't have good enough communication to count every vote and report them in a timely way.

We do now, so there's absolutely no need for the electoral college in any way whatsoever.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What sucks is that if we voted nationally on whether to keep the electoral college or not, the electoral college could simply give all the electoral votes to "yay" and keep itself in power. Damn electoral college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thefuzz' timestamp='1352483141' post='1989306']

I would be in favor of this. Too much control in certain areas of the map.
[/quote]


Yeah. Who died and made Ohio king? Even when those bastards retire to Florida, they still can control the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

TIL that NC did not participate in electing George Washington as the 1st POTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='rodeo' timestamp='1352484095' post='1989327']
That's silly overcomplication. The electoral college is a holdover from when we didn't have good enough communication to count every vote and report them in a timely way.

We do now, so there's absolutely no need for the electoral college in any way whatsoever.
[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I thought part of the reasoning for the electoral college was to appease some of the smaller less populated states. Going to a straight popular vote I think would diminish the importance of votes in less populated states...

I'm no political expert, so take my words as just a frustrated citizen trying to be objective for new reasonable solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='theyhateme45' timestamp='1352484928' post='1989365']

I could be wrong, but I thought part of the reasoning for the electoral college was to appease some of the smaller less populated states. Going to a straight popular vote I think would diminish the importance of votes in less populated states...

I'm no political expert, so take my words as just a frustrated citizen trying to be objective for new reasonable solutions.
[/quote]

The president was originally designed to be nothing but an executive of a federation of independent states. According to various constitutional theory, this is counter balanced by the popular vote derived congress.

The original idea was that the president would be elected expressly by congress with no actual citizen voter input. This was eventually morphed into the current electoral college because of a fear of the populace being distrustful of a president elected by a relatively small group of people who meet together on a regular basis.....IE corruption, and the divisive issue of suffrage rights and the slave population.

While you were correct, somewhat, in that smaller states supported the idea because of them viewing it as a way to maintain a fair shake in the process counter to their smaller population - it was not the primary reason for it's inception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='theyhateme45' timestamp='1352484928' post='1989365']

I could be wrong, but I thought part of the reasoning for the electoral college was to appease some of the smaller less populated states. Going to a straight popular vote I think would diminish the importance of votes in less populated states...
[/quote]

how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='mmmbeans' timestamp='1352486540' post='1989434']
how?
[/quote]

At the time, regional issues were more important. State specific issues were more important, in the presidential election, for a state's populace. A straight popular vote would have nullified an entire state's votes, such as Montana for instance, who were voting in a uniform fashion because of a local issue, because their small population numbers would have become lost in the shuffle. An electoral vote that was equal to their representation in congress gave them a bigger voice.

Today this isn't really the case, with mass communication and the growth of nations infrastructure, localized issues have become second to "bigger" issues like the national economy and foreign policy and, unfortunately, social issues like abortion and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Floppin' timestamp='1352486912' post='1989448']

At the time, regional issues were more important. State specific issues were more important, in the presidential election, for a states populace. A straight popular vote would have nullified entire states votes, such as Montana for instance, who were voting in a uniform fashion because of a local issue, because their small population numbers would have lost int he shuffle. An electoral vote that was equal to their representation in congress gave them a bigger voice.

Today this isn't really the case, with mass communication and the growth of nations infrastructure, localized issues have become second to "bigger" issues like the national economy and foreign policy and, unfortunately, social issues like abortion and the like.
[/quote]

right, I meant "how would that happen now?" but very nice explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='theyhateme45' timestamp='1352484928' post='1989365']
I could be wrong, but I thought part of the reasoning for the electoral college was to appease some of the smaller less populated states. Going to a straight popular vote I think would diminish the importance of votes in less populated states...

I'm no political expert, so take my words as just a frustrated citizen trying to be objective for new reasonable solutions.
[/quote]

Well that's what evolved out of it, but was never the actual intent. That argument falls apart when you ask the question why we should appease people in smaller states by making their vote count more than a person in a populous state.

Land shouldn't have a vote, people should. 1 person = 1 vote, that's my opinion on it.

There are 5,000,000 people in California whose vote simply don't count because they voted for Romney. That's just not right to me.

After 2000 it was impossible to get this point across to the right because the EC worked in their favor. Now that they had a close glimpse of the possibility of the same situation, maybe we can actually get something done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites