- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If each state had congress rep. based on percentage of each partys number of voters
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:22 am
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:22 am
I asked Grok the below question. I was surprised that it wouldn't have much impact on the already existing number.
quote:
What would congressional representation look like if each state had congressional representation based on percentage of each partys number of voters?
If U.S. House seats were allocated within each state proportionally to the percentage of Democratic and Republican voters (using 2024 presidential election results as the clearest nationwide proxy for partisan voter share), the representation would look significantly more balanced and directly reflective of statewide vote totals.
en.wikipedia.org
The total number of House seats per state would stay exactly the same (fixed by the 2020 census apportionment for the 119th Congress, totaling 435 seats). However, instead of single-member districts (which can amplify geographic clustering or gerrymandering effects), each state’s delegation would be divided proportionally using the two-party vote share from the 2024 presidential race (Trump vs. Harris percentages, normalized to exclude the small ~1–4% third-party/other vote). Seats are calculated via the largest-remainder method for exact integer allocation that sums perfectly to each state’s total.
en.wikipedia.org
National outcomeHypothetical House: 222 Republican seats and 213 Democratic seats.
This is a very narrow Republican edge—nearly identical to the actual post-2024 composition (roughly 220R–215D, accounting for minor vacancies/changes). Nationally, it tracks the close popular vote (Trump ~49.8%, Harris ~48.3%).
How it would change representation (key examples)Here are the hypothetical proportional splits for the states previously highlighted for large voter–seat discrepancies. (Current actual 2024 House delegation shown for direct comparison.)States with current Republican overrepresentation (would become more balanced):Wisconsin (8 seats): 4R / 4D (vs. current 6R / 2D) ? Republicans lose 2 seats.
North Carolina (14 seats): 7R / 7D (vs. current 10R / 4D) ? Republicans lose 3 seats.
Florida (28 seats): 16R / 12D (vs. current 20R / 8D) ? Republicans lose 4 seats.
Missouri (8 seats): 5R / 3D (vs. current 6R / 2D) ? Republicans lose 1 seat.
Ohio (15 seats): 8R / 7D (vs. current 10R / 5D) ? Republicans lose 2 seats.
Tennessee (9 seats): 6R / 3D (vs. current 8R / 1D) ? Republicans lose 2 seats.
States with current Democratic overrepresentation (would become more balanced):Illinois (17 seats): 8R / 9D (vs. current 3R / 14D) ? Democrats lose 5 seats.
California (52 seats): 21R / 31D (vs. current 9R / 43D) ? Democrats lose 12 seats.
New York (26 seats): 11R / 15D (vs. current 7R / 19D) ? Democrats lose 4 seats.
Massachusetts (9 seats): 3R / 6D (vs. current 0R / 9D) ? Democrats lose 3 seats.
Connecticut (5 seats): 2R / 3D (vs. current 0R / 5D) ? Democrats lose 2 seats.
Nevada (4 seats): 2R / 2D (vs. current 1R / 3D) ? Democrats lose 1 seat.
Broader patternsSingle-district states (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming): No change—always 1 seat to the party that won the statewide vote (matches the current system).
Most other multi-district states would see smaller adjustments (often ±1 seat), resulting in more even splits where vote shares are competitive (e.g., Georgia 7R/7D, Pennsylvania 9R/8D, Michigan 7R/6D).
Overall effect: This system would eliminate most of the large discrepancies caused by district lines, urban/rural voter clustering, or map-drawing. Every state’s delegation would mirror its voters’ partisan split almost exactly. No more “packed” urban Democratic votes or “cracked” rural Republican ones within a state.
In practice, this would require either at-large elections or multi-member districts with proportional voting rules (not currently used for the U.S. House). It would make House outcomes far more predictable from statewide presidential results and reduce the impact of gerrymandering or natural geography. Data is based on certified 2024 presidential results and the fixed House apportionment. Minor third-party votes were normalized out, as the question focuses on Democrat vs. Republican voter percentages.
11
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:23 am to lake chuck fan
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:29 am to lake chuck fan
Can we take out dead people and illegals first?
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:31 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
What would congressional representation look like if each state had congressional representation based on percentage of each party's number of voters? Use the 2016 Presidential election results to estimate the representatives in the Senate and House. Do one calculation based on Presidential election results by state and another by Proportional-national voting.
This is from a chart so the formatting is bad:
quote:
1. National Proportional Voting (The "One Big District" Model)
Party Popular Vote %
House Seats (of 435) and Senate Seats (of 100)
Democratic 48.2%
210 & 48
Republican 46.1%
200 & 46
Libertarian 3.3%
14 & 3
Green 1.1%
5 & 1
Other 1.3%
6 & 2
quote:
2. State-by-State Proportional Voting
This model is more complex. It keeps the current number of seats assigned to each state but divides those seats based on how that specific state voted for President. For example, if a state has 10 House seats and the vote was 60% Democratic and 40% Republican, they would send 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans.
The House of Representatives (Estimates)
When you aggregate proportional results state-by-state, the outcome often shifts slightly toward the party that won more small states (Republicans) or large states (Democrats), depending on the year.
Democratic: ~208 seats
Republican: ~205 seats
Third Parties: ~22 seats
The Impact: This eliminates "Safe Red" or "Safe Blue" states. Even in a deeply Republican state like Wyoming (which has only 1 House seat), a proportional system would likely require a "Fractional" or "Mixed-Member" approach, as you cannot split a single seat. In larger states like California (53 seats), the 31.5% of people who voted for Trump would have sent 17 Republicans to the House, rather than the 14 who actually went.
The Senate (Estimates)
The Senate is traditionally two seats per state. Under a proportional state-based model, any state where the vote was relatively close (e.g., 52% to 48%) would send one Senator from each party.
States with a "Split" Result: In 2016, 46 out of 50 states were close enough that a proportional split would result in 1 Democrat and 1 Republican.
Extreme Outliers: Only in states where one party won more than 75% of the vote would a 2-0 sweep occur. In 2016, no state reached this threshold for either party (DC did, but it has no Senate seats).
The Result: The Senate would almost certainly be a 50-50 tie (or 48-48-4 with third parties), as nearly every state would send one member from each major party.
Basically the DEMs would have gotten a lot more seats in 2016 if we used either system, but national proportional moreso.
And there was this:
quote:
Under either proportional model, the Libertarian Party would have become a major political force in 2016, holding enough seats in the House (approx. 14) to decide which major party could form a government.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:31 am to lake chuck fan
This country is likely 65-35 conservative to liberal split.
A decade ago it was about 75-25.
It’s not really close to the razor thin 50/50 split like the CIA wants you to believe.
A decade ago it was about 75-25.
It’s not really close to the razor thin 50/50 split like the CIA wants you to believe.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 8:32 am
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:32 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
This country is likely 65-35 conservative to liberal split.
A decade ago it was about 75-25.
The DEMs have dominated national voting totals for the past 20 years. 2024 was the outlier as it was the perfect storm for moderates to support the GOP while DEMs had horrible enthusiasm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:34 am to lake chuck fan
Aren't the seats based on population and not political party?
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:38 am to Barneyrb
quote:
Aren't the seats based on population and not political party?
Yes but the system is inherently biased to over-represent rural areas.
In our current political divide/paradigm, that means conservatives get an unnatural advantage in the system. They get more representation compared to the votes they receive.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 8:40 am
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:But we kept hearing how Trump's "mean tweets" were driving away independents, women, and minorities. And there was so much excitement that Kamala was going to be the 1st woman, Black, and Indian president! All the celebrities were soooooo excited!
The DEMs have dominated national voting totals for the past 20 years. 2024 was the outlier as it was the perfect storm for moderates to support the GOP while DEMs had horrible enthusiasm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:34 am to BHTiger
I was going to say that the country as a whole at any point is going to be within about 54-46% either way. Of course the illegals and dead voters are what keeps this certain.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:51 am to lake chuck fan
Instead of looking at it based on state population, wouldn't it make sense to consider the breakdown based on number of county's won in each State? For instance, I cannot quickly find a true total, but looking at a map shows Harris claimed 23 counties in California, and Trump took 35. That would give Republicans 31 seats in the House in California, instead of the 7 they have now.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:53 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
But we kept hearing how Trump's "mean tweets" were driving away independents, women, and minorities.
He was toned down a bit and it just didn't matter with the combination of the DEMs/Left getting too many cultural cycles and going off the deep end, economic issues, and Biden dropping out and being replaced (undemocratically) by a person everyone hates. That was just insurmountable.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:53 am to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
Instead of looking at it based on state population, wouldn't it make sense to consider the breakdown based on number of county's won in each State?
Why? That's an arbitrary framing within an even more arbitrary framing.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:55 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
What would congressional representation look like if each state had congressional representation based on percentage of each partys number of voters?
That's not how it works.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:55 am to lake chuck fan
percentage of each partys number of voters
read George Washington's speech
read George Washington's speech
Posted on 5/4/26 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is from a chart so the formatting is bad:
What chart? What source?
Everything I've read indicates that non-gerrymandered, "compact districts" would favor Republicans nationally, because smaller states and rural areas, where democrat apportionment would be underrepresented (e.g., Wyoming), would skew a few seats in the house to the GOP. Currently that would put about 225 seats in the Republican Party. So it would entail an addition of about five seats.
Democrats are "Packed": They live in dense cities. A compact circle around downtown Chicago might be 90% Democratic. It would generate a similar type of radical socialist democrat to what we are now seeing throughout the house.
Republican areas are more efficient in terms of vote generation, and that they are not as concentrated in majority areas. We would have a lot more "moderate Republicans" including many seats from the northeast and West Coast UCB. A compact square in the suburbs might be 55% Republican.
If the national vote was a 50/50 tie, the Republicans would end up with roughly 225 seats simply because their voters are distributed more effectively across the map.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 10:04 am to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
wouldn't it make sense to consider the breakdown based on number of county's won in each State?
Not if the counties have varying populations.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 10:06 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
What would congressional representation look like if each state had congressional representation based on percentage of each partys number of voters?
Right off the bat you need to ask Grok a question before even proceeding. And Grok can’t answer it but we all know it happens:
Q: How many democratic voters are illegal or dead or made up or duplicated
Posted on 5/4/26 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
Land doesn't vote.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 10:12 am to atlgamecockman
The world would be better if democrats didn’t vote
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News