Coincidence between 2016 and 2020 elections: 306/232
In 2016 election Trump got 306 and Hillary got 232
In the 2020 election Biden has 290 and Trump has 217. But thats because North Carolina and Georgia haven't been counted yet. North Carolina leans red, and Georgia leans blue. So if we assume they will stay this way, then Trump will end up with 217+15=232 votes and Biden will end up with 290+16=306 votes.
So that will be exact coincidence -- except for the parties being switched around.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,249
Location: Long Island, New York
Hilary won the popular vote.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016
Clinton 65,844,969 48.3%
Trump 62,979,984 46.2%
Johnson 4,492,919 3.3%
Stein 1,449,370 1.1%
Other 1,684,908 1.2%
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Actually it started out that way, during the first day the votes were counted, although of course later on it changed.
But in any case, the coincidence with two exact numbers is quite exciting, regardless of the rest of it being different.
Oh hey, here is one more similarity. In both cases the losing side took it to courts (remember the whole investigation regarding Russia).
Actually it started out that way, during the first day the votes were counted, although of course later on it changed.
But in any case, the coincidence with two exact numbers is quite exciting, regardless of the rest of it being different.
Oh hey, here is one more similarity. In both cases the losing side took it to courts (remember the whole investigation regarding Russia).
The Democrats did not sue over the election results in 2016. That is another difference. They had actually conceded by this point in time--another difference.
Biden and Trump also have the same number of letters in their last names too!
Coincidence in the number of votes is, statistically, a lot less likely than the coincidence in the number in the last name. Thats why its a lot more impressive.
Biden and Trump also have the same number of letters in their last names too!
Coincidence in the number of votes is, statistically, a lot less likely than the coincidence in the number in the last name. Thats why its a lot more impressive.
Coincidence in the exact number of popular votes cast by the population of any juristiction larger than a school classroom IS statistically unlikely because the numbers are in the thousands or millions. But coincidence in the number of electorial votes in the US presidential election(the entire population of the electorial college is only 525 if I am not mistaken) is not all of that remarkable. 150 million folks voted in the last election, but only 525 electors will vote. So the electorial college is like a small town of 1000 in which 525 adults vote. In such a small town you might well get the same exact split of opposing votes in subsequent elections once in a while.
But since we are on the subject of the electorial college, and of math- Americans have been debating whether or not to keep the electorial college, or to junk it and go for direct election of the POTUS by popular vote.
It occurred to me one day that maybe we could try out a compromise solution. Try out an Electorial College Lite.
The present Electorial college grants the same number of votes to states as the state has reps in congress- the number of senators plus the number of members of the House.
But the two houses work differently. In the House Reps you get reps based upon the population of voters in the state. But in the Senate you automatically get two members representing your state regardless of population. So Rhode Island, and Alaska (each less than a million population) get the same number of Senators as does California, New York, and Texas.
So this skews the power to the small population states in the electorial college.
So I wondered what would happen if the modified it so that they...just forget about the number of senators (the Senate being divorced from population size)- and JUST assign the number of electors to a state that equals the number of that states reps to the House? That would make the electorial coole one step closer to being like a straight up popular vote because it would adhere more closely to population size.
So I did some math. Was surprised at the result. Even if they had done my idea of only giving states votes equal in number to their reps in the House sans the two each each state gets for its automatic two Senators- Trump still would have won the 16 election. Hillary won the popular vote, but even with my proposed rump version of the electorial college (which is more population based than the existing EC) she still would have lost the electorial college vote because just how it all slices up.
So if you like Trump you might like my compromise idea, if you dont Trump you might not like it. Oh well.
But it would be moot in this election because both the popular vote and electorial vote went the same way this time.