Well, the electoral college (assuming we can vote again) would be based on population. And based on by very small amount of research:
Blue Illinois: ~17-18 electoral votes
Red Illinois: ~3-4 electoral votes
The last time Illinois voted red was in 1988 for Bush.
Here is an estimate of the outcome from ChatGPT, if you’re into such things.
If Illinois were split into “Red Illinois” and “Blue Illinois,” it would likely be a boon for the Democratic side (the “Blues”) rather than the Republicans (the “Reds”). Here’s why:
1. Electoral Vote Distribution:
• Blue Illinois (urban and suburban areas, especially around Chicago) would retain most of the population and, therefore, the majority of Illinois’ current electoral votes.
• Red Illinois (primarily rural areas) would receive only a small number of electoral votes due to its lower population.
2. National Electoral Impact:
• Currently, Illinois’ electoral votes (all 21) reliably go to the Democratic candidate. If split, Blue Illinois would continue to deliver its substantial number of votes to Democrats.
• Red Illinois, with its few electoral votes, would be a small gain for Republicans but would not offset the significant Democratic advantage from Blue Illinois.
3. Practical Outcome:
• While Republicans might gain a small number of electoral votes from Red Illinois, Democrats would retain the larger share. This would effectively increase the Democratic advantage, as they would gain electoral votes from a smaller but reliable “blue” state and leave Republicans with only a minor gain.
In summary, a split would likely strengthen the Democratic position overall, giving them a solidly blue state (Blue Illinois) with substantial electoral power while only slightly increasing the Republican count.
I always wondered about that. Why do states give all their electoral votes to one candidate? If a state has 20 votes and 51% of its population voted X, while 49% voted Y, wouldn’t it be fair to give 10 votes to X and 10 votes to Y, instead of 20 to X and nothing for Y?
So actually, Maine does not. It splits its votes. But that’s just the way the states decided to do it. Theoretically, that process could change now if a law passed.
Think of it this way - imagine nationally the election is close and how your state distributes EC votes determines the outcome. Let’s further say 70% of your citizens voted for candidate A, but for candidate A to win nationally they need all your EC votes. Given that your state laws should primarily be for the benefit of said state’s citizens, would you really want an outcome that 70% of your state’s voters don’t want? All it would take is one election where this determined the outcome before the voters would make it “winner takes all”.
That’s why you shouldn’t use AI. The Democratic advantage described doesn’t exist. It takes a small number of reliable EC votes from Democrats and gives them to Republicans.
Well, the electoral college (assuming we can vote again) would be based on population. And based on by very small amount of research:
Blue Illinois: ~17-18 electoral votes
Red Illinois: ~3-4 electoral votes
The last time Illinois voted red was in 1988 for Bush.
Here is an estimate of the outcome from ChatGPT, if you’re into such things.
If Illinois were split into “Red Illinois” and “Blue Illinois,” it would likely be a boon for the Democratic side (the “Blues”) rather than the Republicans (the “Reds”). Here’s why:
1. Electoral Vote Distribution:
• Blue Illinois (urban and suburban areas, especially around Chicago) would retain most of the population and, therefore, the majority of Illinois’ current electoral votes.
• Red Illinois (primarily rural areas) would receive only a small number of electoral votes due to its lower population.
2. National Electoral Impact:
• Currently, Illinois’ electoral votes (all 21) reliably go to the Democratic candidate. If split, Blue Illinois would continue to deliver its substantial number of votes to Democrats.
• Red Illinois, with its few electoral votes, would be a small gain for Republicans but would not offset the significant Democratic advantage from Blue Illinois.
3. Practical Outcome:
• While Republicans might gain a small number of electoral votes from Red Illinois, Democrats would retain the larger share. This would effectively increase the Democratic advantage, as they would gain electoral votes from a smaller but reliable “blue” state and leave Republicans with only a minor gain.
In summary, a split would likely strengthen the Democratic position overall, giving them a solidly blue state (Blue Illinois) with substantial electoral power while only slightly increasing the Republican count.
I always wondered about that. Why do states give all their electoral votes to one candidate? If a state has 20 votes and 51% of its population voted X, while 49% voted Y, wouldn’t it be fair to give 10 votes to X and 10 votes to Y, instead of 20 to X and nothing for Y?
So actually, Maine does not. It splits its votes. But that’s just the way the states decided to do it. Theoretically, that process could change now if a law passed.
Think of it this way - imagine nationally the election is close and how your state distributes EC votes determines the outcome. Let’s further say 70% of your citizens voted for candidate A, but for candidate A to win nationally they need all your EC votes. Given that your state laws should primarily be for the benefit of said state’s citizens, would you really want an outcome that 70% of your state’s voters don’t want? All it would take is one election where this determined the outcome before the voters would make it “winner takes all”.
It’s not about the House or the EC, it’s the Senate. 2 more reliably R senators makes things worse
That’s why you shouldn’t use AI. The Democratic advantage described doesn’t exist. It takes a small number of reliable EC votes from Democrats and gives them to Republicans.
And if every state did it, they wouldn’t get many total. But let’s be real, we’re never voting again. Next year the camps will start up.