another rigged election

[earendel]

Have you heard the latest? Donald Trump is already claiming that the papal conclave is rigged because he won't be elected Pope.

[a1mamacat]

Have you heard the latest? Donald Trump is already claiming that the papal conclave is rigged because he won't be elected Pope.

and Canada didn’t elect him either.

[elwoodblues]

Have you heard the latest? Donald Trump is already claiming that the papal conclave is rigged because he won't be elected Pope.

and Canada didn’t elect him either.

How much would you have to suck to have another country vote against you?

[Spock]

Have you heard the latest? Donald Trump is already claiming that the papal conclave is rigged because he won't be elected Pope.

and Canada didn’t elect him either.

How much would you have to suck to have another country vote against you?

Yeah, well-he won the one that mattered.

[tlynn78]

and Canada didn’t elect him either.

How much would you have to suck to have another country vote against you?

Yeah, well-he won the one that mattered.

There's that!

[BackInTex]

How much would you have to suck to have another country vote against you?

Yeah, well-he won the one that mattered.

There's that!

Even as the 51st state, Trump would have still won the Electoral College, 280 -258, by my calculation.

[jarnon]

Trump is going along with earendel’s joke. When a reporter asked him about the conclave, he said: “I’d like to be pope. That would be my number one choice.”

[a1mamacat]

Tump is going along with earendel’s joke. When a reporter asked him about the conclave, he said: “I’d like to be pope. That would be my number one choice.”

cassock should be red and middle finger raised, and horns, not a mitre.

[Beebs52]

Eh, Catholism. Who gives a rat's mitre.

[kroxquo]

Yeah, well-he won the one that mattered.

There's that!

Even as the 51st state, Trump would have still won the Electoral College, 280 -258, by my calculation.

I'm curious about your math. Going on the assumption that 1)all the results in the 50 states are the same; 2)Canada counts as one state and is not divided into its current provinces; 3) Canada gets the same number of votes as California since its population is roughly the same; and 4) Canada votes for Harris; I'm getting a total of 312-278 in favor of Trump.

[BackInTex]

There's that!

Even as the 51st state, Trump would have still won the Electoral College, 280 -258, by my calculation.

I'm curious about your math. Going on the assumption that 1)all the results in the 50 states are the same; 2)Canada counts as one state and is not divided into its current provinces; 3) Canada gets the same number of votes as California since its population is roughly the same; and 4) Canada votes for Harris; I'm getting a total of 312-278 in favor of Trump.

I assumed the Electoral College stays at 538 and I reallocated all the elector counts based on population, wtih 13 states getting the minimum 2. I used 2024 population estimates and my methodology likely has a few flaws. The reallocation reduced 44 states' numbers (mostly going to Canada) and increased 3 (California by 1, Florida by 3, Texas by 4).

Both Canada and California having 55.

[silverscreenselect]

Even as the 51st state, Trump would have still won the Electoral College, 280 -258, by my calculation.

I'm curious about your math. Going on the assumption that 1)all the results in the 50 states are the same; 2)Canada counts as one state and is not divided into its current provinces; 3) Canada gets the same number of votes as California since its population is roughly the same; and 4) Canada votes for Harris; I'm getting a total of 312-278 in favor of Trump.

I assumed the Electoral College stays at 538 and I reallocated all the elector counts based on population, wtih 13 states getting the minimum 2. I used 2024 population estimates and my methodology likely has a few flaws. The reallocation reduced 44 states' numbers (mostly going to Canada) and increased 3 (California by 1, Florida by 3, Texas by 4).

Both Canada and California having 55.

The size of the House of Representatives has been set by law at 435 since the 1920s. However, Canada would also get two Senators, and when you add them, you get 540. All states have at least one Representative, and thus at least three electoral votes.

The most significant impact of Canada becoming a State would be an immediate shift in the composition of the House. No matter how the Canadians reshape their political parties (they also have a Quebec party that has a few seats in Parliament from that province), it's fair to assume that a Liberal/Democratic party would gain several seats in a reconstituted House, possibly giving Democrats a majority. And two Democratic Senators would make it easier for Democrats to regain control of the Senate in future years.

[kroxquo]

Even as the 51st state, Trump would have still won the Electoral College, 280 -258, by my calculation.

I'm curious about your math. Going on the assumption that 1)all the results in the 50 states are the same; 2)Canada counts as one state and is not divided into its current provinces; 3) Canada gets the same number of votes as California since its population is roughly the same; and 4) Canada votes for Harris; I'm getting a total of 312-278 in favor of Trump.

I assumed the Electoral College stays at 538 and I reallocated all the elector counts based on population, wtih 13 states getting the minimum 2. I used 2024 population estimates and my methodology likely has a few flaws. The reallocation reduced 44 states' numbers (mostly going to Canada) and increased 3 (California by 1, Florida by 3, Texas by 4).

Both Canada and California having 55.

Thank-you. I had forgotten that the size of the House is set by statute rather just adding in new numbers.

[BackInTex]

I'm curious about your math. Going on the assumption that 1)all the results in the 50 states are the same; 2)Canada counts as one state and is not divided into its current provinces; 3) Canada gets the same number of votes as California since its population is roughly the same; and 4) Canada votes for Harris; I'm getting a total of 312-278 in favor of Trump.

I assumed the Electoral College stays at 538 and I reallocated all the elector counts based on population, wtih 13 states getting the minimum 2. I used 2024 population estimates and my methodology likely has a few flaws. The reallocation reduced 44 states' numbers (mostly going to Canada) and increased 3 (California by 1, Florida by 3, Texas by 4).

Both Canada and California having 55.

Thank-you. I had forgotten that the size of the House is set by statute rather just adding in new numbers.

And I, as SSS noted above, forgot how the 538 was allocated, 2 Senators, and minimum of 1 US Rep, so my realloction WAS flawed, as I suspected. I just wasn't aware how. I still think we both are correct in that Trump sill would have won.

[silverscreenselect]

And I, as SSS noted above, forgot how the 538 was allocated, 2 Senators, and minimum of 1 US Rep, so my realloction WAS flawed, as I suspected. I just wasn't aware how. I still think we both are correct in that Trump sill would have won.

Another wrinkle. When Alaska and Hawaii became states, they were each allocated one Representative, and the size of the House was temporarily raised to 437, pending the results of the 1960 census, when the number was again reduced to 435. If you look at 1960 presidential election results (before the DC amendment was adopted), there were 537 electoral votes that year.

Congress would need to decide how many electoral votes to give Canada pending the 2030 census, and whether to just add House members for the next two or three terms or decide on some form of reapportionment.

[jarnon]

This graph shows the breakdown by province:



So if, say, Congress creates six new states and three non-voting territories, Alberta and Manitoba-Saskatchewan would vote Republican; Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes would be Democratic; and British Columbia is a swing state.