steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:47 pm
Sadly, the most a third party ever got during a presidential election was something like 3 - 4% of the vote.
In 1992 the results were
Clinton: 43%
Bush: 37%
Perot: 19%
In 1968 the results were:
Nixon 43.4%
Humphrey: 42.7%
Wallace: 13.5%
The issue is that the electoral college is winner-take-all so unless you actually WIN a state you get zero electoral votes.
Wow. That I wouldn't have known. My data is flawed. What parties did Perot and Wallace run under?
Ross Perot founded the Reform Party but I think that came after he ran as an independent in 1992
George Wallace ran under the American Independent Party
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:14 pm
I never knew that Nixon ran that close of a race
68 was pretty close. 72 was a landslide
Nixon also won the election in 60, but the vote fraud (particularly in Chicago) was so much that JFK ended up in office instead.
Nonsense. In 1960 the popular vote count was close but the electoral vote was not. And we all know that in this country we elect presidents by electoral vote not popular vote or Bush and Trump would have never come close to the White House because they both lost the popular vote (Trump twice).
In 1960 the electoral college vote was
Kennedy: 303
Nixon: 219
Fourteen electors from Mississippi and Alabama cast their vote for Senator Harry F. Byrd on segregationist grounds, despite Kennedy winning both states handily so the actual count should have been 317 to 219.
Illinois had 27 electoral votes. If you flip them to Nixon, Kennedy still wins and you end up with an electoral vote margin of:
Kennedy: 290
Nixon: 246
Nixon would have had to flip six of the close or "battleground" states in order to win, not just Illinois.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Nixon also won the election in 60, but the vote fraud (particularly in Chicago) was so much that JFK ended up in office instead.
Nonsense. In 1960 the popular vote count was close but the electoral vote was not. And we all know that in this country we elect presidents by electoral vote not popular vote or Bush and Trump would have never come close to the White House because they both lost the popular vote (Trump twice).
In 1960 the electoral college vote was
Kennedy: 303
Nixon: 219
Fourteen electors from Mississippi and Alabama cast their vote for Senator Harry F. Byrd on segregationist grounds, despite Kennedy winning both states handily so the actual count should have been 317 to 219.
Illinois had 27 electoral votes. If you flip them to Nixon, Kennedy still wins and you end up with an electoral vote margin of:
Kennedy: 290
Nixon: 246
Nixon would have had to flip six of the close or "battleground" states in order to win, not just Illinois.
You sure about that? It looks to me like in addition to IL, 32k votes between NJ and MO would have easily done the trick. Or just 20,000 votes in HI, MO, and SC. That's if you re-classify the votes for Byrd. Otherwise it only takes another 10,100 votes from HI and MO on top of the IL votes to get Nixon to the top.
Nixon also won the election in 60, but the vote fraud (particularly in Chicago) was so much that JFK ended up in office instead.
Nonsense. In 1960 the popular vote count was close but the electoral vote was not. And we all know that in this country we elect presidents by electoral vote not popular vote or Bush and Trump would have never come close to the White House because they both lost the popular vote (Trump twice).
In 1960 the electoral college vote was
Kennedy: 303
Nixon: 219
Fourteen electors from Mississippi and Alabama cast their vote for Senator Harry F. Byrd on segregationist grounds, despite Kennedy winning both states handily so the actual count should have been 317 to 219.
Illinois had 27 electoral votes. If you flip them to Nixon, Kennedy still wins and you end up with an electoral vote margin of:
Kennedy: 290
Nixon: 246
Nixon would have had to flip six of the close or "battleground" states in order to win, not just Illinois.
You sure about that? It looks to me like in addition to IL, 32k votes between NJ and MO would have easily done the trick. Or just 20,000 votes in HI, MO, and SC. That's if you re-classify the votes for Byrd. Otherwise it only takes another 10,100 votes from HI and MO on top of the IL votes to get Nixon to the top.
I'm going by Wikipedia which has New Jersey as the 6th and tipping point state for a Nixon win assuming Nixon holds onto California.
Six Closest states with margin of victory less than 1% (95 electoral votes):
Hawaii, 0.06% (115 votes)
Illinois, 0.19% (8,858 votes)
Missouri, 0.52% (9,980 votes) (tipping point state for Kennedy win)
California, 0.55% (35,623 votes)
New Mexico, 0.74% (2,294 votes)
New Jersey, 0.80% (22,091 votes) (tipping point state if Nixon wins)
If he flips the four closest states
Hawaii: 3
Illinois: 27
Missouri: 13
New Mexico: 4
He gets 47 electoral votes which isn't enough. He needs to keep California and flip New Jersey which is the 6th closest state (but 5th state to flip, not 6th so that is my error)
One could argue that voter fraud in Nixon's home state of California flipped that state to Nixon made the election much closer than it should have been. There is just as much evidence for that as there is for voter fraud in those other 5 states.
Recounts actually occurred in various states in 1960 and none turned up any evidence of systematic fraud. Not even in Illinois. So it is simply wrong to state that Nixon actually won the 1960 election. He lost both the popular vote and electoral college vote.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Nonsense. In 1960 the popular vote count was close but the electoral vote was not. And we all know that in this country we elect presidents by electoral vote not popular vote or Bush and Trump would have never come close to the White House because they both lost the popular vote (Trump twice).
In 1960 the electoral college vote was
Kennedy: 303
Nixon: 219
Fourteen electors from Mississippi and Alabama cast their vote for Senator Harry F. Byrd on segregationist grounds, despite Kennedy winning both states handily so the actual count should have been 317 to 219.
Illinois had 27 electoral votes. If you flip them to Nixon, Kennedy still wins and you end up with an electoral vote margin of:
Kennedy: 290
Nixon: 246
Nixon would have had to flip six of the close or "battleground" states in order to win, not just Illinois.
You sure about that? It looks to me like in addition to IL, 32k votes between NJ and MO would have easily done the trick. Or just 20,000 votes in HI, MO, and SC. That's if you re-classify the votes for Byrd. Otherwise it only takes another 10,100 votes from HI and MO on top of the IL votes to get Nixon to the top.
I'm going by Wikipedia which has New Jersey as the 6th and tipping point state for a Nixon win assuming Nixon holds onto California.
Six Closest states with margin of victory less than 1% (95 electoral votes):
Hawaii, 0.06% (115 votes)
Illinois, 0.19% (8,858 votes)
Missouri, 0.52% (9,980 votes) (tipping point state for Kennedy win)
California, 0.55% (35,623 votes)
New Mexico, 0.74% (2,294 votes)
New Jersey, 0.80% (22,091 votes) (tipping point state if Nixon wins)
If he flips the four closest states
Hawaii: 3
Illinois: 27
Missouri: 13
New Mexico: 4
He gets 47 electoral votes which isn't enough. He needs to keep California and flip New Jersey which is the 6th closest state (but 5th state to flip, not 6th so that is my error)
One could argue that voter fraud in Nixon's home state of California flipped that state to Nixon made the election much closer than it should have been. There is just as much evidence for that as there is for voter fraud in those other 5 states.
Recounts actually occurred in various states in 1960 and none turned up any evidence of systematic fraud. Not even in Illinois. So it is simply wrong to state that Nixon actually won the 1960 election. He lost both the popular vote and electoral college vote.
He would only have needed to flip three of those six states in order to win. I'm not at all defending claims of voter fraud because I don't know anything about that. Just pointing out that the claim that he would have needed to flip six states to win is simply wrong.
