Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 6

= November 6 =

2020 US presidential election question
Had the 2020 US presidential election been a 269-269 electoral vote tie and thus would have gone into the US House of Representatives, who would have been likely to win there? The US House of Representatives votes by state delegation, right? If so, which party has the most state delegations in the US House of Representatives right now? Futurist110 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the answer you seek, see 116th United States Congress. 2606:A000:1126:28D:B44D:AECC:2DDA:3FC5 (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you've forgotten the 20th Amendment. You want the 117th United States Congress.  If I compute correctly based on that article, 24 25 states will have a majority of Republican representatives (AL AR FL GA ID IN KS KY LA MS MO MT NE NC ND OH OK SC SD TN TX UT WV WI WY) vs. 19 with Democrats (AZ CA CO CT DE HI IL ME MD MA NH NJ NM NY OR RI VT VA WA), and 2 will be tied (Michigan, Minnesota).  The other 4 are not yet known as I write (Alaska, Iowa, Nevada, Pennsylvania), but two of those have more Republican winners known than Democratic.  So if this happens and all representatives vote according to their party, a win for Trump is likely but not yet certain (26 states are needed to win, otherwise they re-vote as many times as necessary).
 * Note also that a contingent election is possible if the winner has less than 270 votes due to faithless electors. What a system!
 * (Reposted after my own correction of too-hastily-computed facts and an unwarranted revert.) --174.95.161.129 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC) And then re-corrected. Sheesh, sorry about that. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: according to the linked article. it's now 26 Republican (add Alaska), 20 Democratic (add Nevada), and 3 tied (add Pennsylvania). Iowa is the last one not known, but will be either Republican or tied. So in the scenario in question, it would go to Trump. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The founding fathers' concept was that the states elect the president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another reminder that states don't have corporeal bodies or brains. They are abstract concepts.  People vote.  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the founding fathers could have foreseen what's happening this year (or even 2016), they might have rethought it. As it was, their original scheme didn't quite work, and they had to amend the Constitution in the early 1800s to make the process somewhat better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just how do state delegations vote in the event that the US presidential race goes to the US House of Representatives? As in, does the majority of the state delegation decide? What if there's a tie/deadlock? Futurist110 (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only time this has happened was after the election of 1800, and the delegations that were tied did not vote. (Reposted after an unwarranted revert.) --174.95.161.129 (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It happened in 1824/1825, too. But none of the delegations were deadlocked then; each state had one of the candidates get majority support in their delegation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Demographic change resulting in political changes in large territories?
Which cases have there been of demographic change resulting in political changes in large territories? I can personally think of demographic change (especially the huge influx of non-whites into these territories) making the Southwestern US (California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas) and the Southeastern US (Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia) much more blue and Democratic over the last 30 years, even if the process is in many of these cases still short of full completion. However, which additional examples of this have therem been throughout history? For the record, I mean without any changes in national sovereignty. Futurist110 (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Georgia actually did vote for Bill Clinton back in 1992, but back then working-class white people were a much larger part of the Democratic Party's coalition in the United States than they are right now. Futurist110 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what this question means. As a mere Englishman I am not a great expert on US history but if I remember right there was a very substantial non-white population in Georgia,North Carolina and Virginia along with the other south eastern states since before the USA existed. They were brought there by force. It is the changes in the franchise and their ability to use their rights to vote which may have made a difference. The physical movement was from the "ex-slave states" northwards and westwards. I am also not sure that the ability of the non-white population to vote may not have made much difference, as the Democrats were I think the usual choice of the white population. The Republicans were I think originally a northern party (Abraham Lincoln etc.) I believe that the blacks began to vote Democrat because of the changes introduced by the Democrat Kennedy and Johnson administrations of the 1960s. Here in Britain the split between Labour and Conservative tends to be on income lines rather than racial and although the non white population increased between 1945 and 1980 the immigrant population tended to vote Labour just as the working whites did.As the general population grew richer and some of the non-whites became business men rather than employees, the Conservatives (and the more centrist Blairite Labour Party of the 1990s and 2000s) became more dominant. It seems to me that economics and its effect on people rather than race wins elections except where a party organised on racial lines is also or has been a nationalist party as occurred in India, Pakistan and various African countries. Spinney Hill (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Spinney Hill, there were always a large number of non-Whites in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Many of the non-Whites there today descend from slaves that were in those areas prior to the Civil War.  It was due to Jim Crow laws and other methods of voter suppression that African-Americans in those areas were not a significant political force.  Between the reconstruction era and the late 20th century, there were (and in many cases still are) deliberate and forceful attempts by those in power to prevent or make more difficult, voting by non-Whites.  Some examples for you: the Wilmington insurrection of 1898, the use of poll taxes and "literacy tests" to disqualify black voters (see also Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections for background), the Election riot of 1874, the Ocoee massacre, etc. all represent historical attacks on African-American participation in governance, either as voters or elected officials.  It's not history either, as recently as 2016, courts have ruled that North Carolina used voter ID laws as a deliberate means to disenfranchise African-American voters.  -- Jayron 32 12:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My points exactly. Spinney Hill (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of these US states always had a large non-white population, but the non-white (or, more accurately, non-Hispanic white) percentage in these US states has significantly increased over the last 30 years. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have managed to confuse yourself with your "non-" groups. The non-Hispanic white percentage has been decreasing over the last 30 years. What has been increasing in the last 30 years is the percent of people who are not non-Hispanic white. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Next to the effect of administrations of Democratic Presidents working to expand civil rights in the 1960s, something that was not entirely generally welcomed by Southern Democrats, the Southern Strategy alienated many black voters from the Republican party and flipped the roles of the two dominant parties in the South. --Lambiam 18:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: The racists leaving for the other tent briefly caused a golden age of minimum antisemite percent. The Soviets no longer backing the Jew obliterators, Republicans winning the subculture that interprets some Bible snips as Temple rebuilding and Rapture before all Israel reincarnation contemporaries die, one-sided empathy for Palestinians but not exploded Israelis and Holocaust survivors, and propaganda have caused some antifascist backsliding. Thus there is no fully antiantisemitic party anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Soviets stopped supporting the Nazis at the start of Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, which is also roughly when the Holocaust began on an extremely massive scale with huge massacres of Jews in the parts of the Soviet Union that the Nazis conquered. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All the Israeli killers in the Cold War time, the Hit-Stal Pact was just cause Stal needed to stall and Hit needed to hit one hate at a time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Spinney Hill - the change was much earlier, under Franklin Roosevelt. He lost the black vote in 1932, but gained a large majority for the Presidential vote in 1936, which the Democrats have had ever since, with a clear majority of black people identifying as Democrats since Truman, the change completed under Lyndon Johnson.. The stuff on the Soviet Union and the Nazis is far afield and much above is not a sensible reading of history.John Z (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

US again
What happens if the stress of the count gets to Joe before the tally is complete and he goes the way all good men go. Does Harris automatically take his place as the running candidate and then president if the Dems win? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.89.50 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. -- Jayron 32 12:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But what if he dies before the count has completed? Does this change things? Thanks BTW, that was a great response.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.89.50 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The vote is for electors. They will decide what to do if the law is unclear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Trump seems to be the one under stress now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It can be argued that whoever gathers the requisite number of electors will only become president-elect of the United States upon the counting of the electoral votes in a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021. So the question is not only what happens if they proceed to the astral plane before the vote count of the November 2020 election is completed, but also if their departure takes place before Epiphany. It is not clear that the Twentieth Amendment speaks to that situation. The final word is up to Congress. --Lambiam 17:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. The CBC discussed this recently (here, scroll down to "What happens if the president-elect dies before being sworn in?"), and it depends on when the candidate dies in relation to the Electoral College vote. If before, then their party can nominate any eligible person in their place and the EC voters are expected to vote for them. If after, then the candidate is president-elect and the normal succession rules apply (i.e. the vice-president-elect becomes president-elect automatically). If the candidate dies in between the EC vote and Congress ratification of the vote, then it's a legal gray area. CBC's article has more info on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The term president-elect is an informal usage, not an official title, so the apparent winner of the election becomes president-elect immediately, until or if something changes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This informal usage has somehow sneaked into the text of the United States Constitution. "Apparent winner" is much more informal. This may not be apparent to you, but it is apparent to me that what is apparent to you may not be apparent to me. --Lambiam 12:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "president elect" is used in the 20th Amendment, but is not explicitly defined. Technically he wouldn't be the president-elect until formally elected by the electoral college. But modern custom is to use the term as soon as someone appears to have captured 270 or more electoral votes. As with today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In 1872, Horace Greeley died shortly after the election; his Electors scattered their votes among several second choices. Perhaps the rules changed after that? —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Twentieth Amendment was adopted on January 23, 1933. --Lambiam 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there relevant to events before the Electors do their thing. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A related issue
What happens if one or more of the electors dies before the electoral votes are officially cast? I'm sure the winning party in each state would want the right to appoint a replacement, but is that the law everywhere? Has this ever happened? --174.95.161.129 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The electors are chosen by the state's party, so unless a state law prevents it for some unknown reason, they would choose a replacement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not ask for a guess. ("For some unknown reason".) --174.95.161.129 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL. in your face Bugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.89.50 (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Varies state by state. Guesses are unnecessary other than for those who must hear themselves speak. Here's a compendium of election laws regarding disputes. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And it answers my question for about 15 states. In most of those states the surviving electors vote to name another elector, but in some cases a specific official appoints a new elector (sometimes there is a roster of replacement electors that they must choose from) or it works as Bugs guessed. I wonder if there are still other cases among the other states... but I don't wonder hard enough to try researching it.  Thanks, J.P. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Prediction markets for US election?
Does anyone know if any prediction markets for the US election are still trading? The ones I could find seem to have closed down on Nov 3, or at least not been updated since then, as of last night. I understand there is litigation going on, so as such, the outcome is not yet fully determined, but I also had the impression that things were now pretty much decided in favor of Biden and that there were only a few last gasps being tried by the Trump side. So I was hoping to get a sense of the odds by looking at how people are betting. I'm not seeking to place any bets myself but just want to find out whether my sense of the current status is corroborated by them. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about this one?: https://www.predictit.org/ Futurist110 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks. That seems to have updated yesterday, and in general 1x per day, so it didn't completely stop on Tuesday.  That helps, though I was really hoping for a realtime ticker like the regular stock market has. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately I don't know of any other prediction markets for the US election, though maybe someone else here can help you out. I know that regretfully Intrade shut down several years ago. Futurist110 (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)