Main video: vnclip.net/video/tUX-frlNBJY/video.html Post with spreadsheet download: www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-sneaky-plan-to-subvert-the-electoral-college

I just wrote a 15 page paper on why the electoral college is actually great ;) thanks grey for going into a lot of nitty gritty for me, it really allowed me to get my ideas out there I think the problem ultimately comes down too; 1) do you like seperation of powers 2) do you like representatives 3) should states matter? for 1) theres the British system, one legislature, I think they do matter though 2) plebiscite clauses have their place, not for literally everything though... 3) state should matter! regional issues are a thing!! if you believe in one, you believe in the electoral college, and not the popular vote :D

I had an idea to illustrate the apportionment of seats by showing the states climbing up the priority list (in Javascript), a couple of years ago really. Seeing this inspired me to get it done! www.gogococo.co.uk/apportion

...the data scientist in me, partly appreciates the ingenuity, but another part me looks in horror. I just think of my co-workers I support doing this...

Your such a nerd you made a 42 minute video explaining Apportionment and how you're not going to explain apportionment! And then added each of those states one by one. NERD!!!!

And then I sat here and watch the entire thing... I need better things to do with my life.... oh well when's the next video? :)

So I can't help but wonder about the systems used before the Huntington Hill method, and how final votes might have changed if we redistributed the electoral votes from those elections using the Huntington Hill method. How might history have been different if we had better math, earlier?

Spreadsheets are the most used programming environment in the world. And they're not just functional, but functional-reactive! Who says functional programming is hard?

38:00 Grey mentioning hattricks got me thinking, how did hattricks get their name, it feels like there's a story behind that name. I looked it up, so, random fact: Hat-trick once referred to a magician consecutively taking 3 rabbits out of his hat. The term was used in sports for the first time in a cricket game in 1858

Huge fan of CGP Grey, but I must admit even I started to skip after 25 minutes... one can't help but think you could have found a faster macro programme - I recommend WinAutomation Pro... doh, but you use a Mac ;-)

Gotta say I really enjoyed this. I also realized once again that it is no wonder your videos take so long. Not that that is a bad thing in itself, you have a passion and excitement for learning and understanding which really shines through. And whilst I really enjoy your scripted content, I would love to see more of this type of ramble-y, non-animated stuff as well to tie me over. More please!

Your method is a bit naive. It considers only the inequity in apportionment before adding the next seat, not the inequity after adding it. The Huntington-Hill method considers both.

Think of it sort of like this. If you increase something from 5 to 10, you have doubled it--a relative increase of 100%. But if you decrease something from 10 to 5, you have halved it--a relative decrease of 50%. How can we describe the "relative difference" between 5 and 10? There are multiple ways to do it. We might say there is relative difference of 100% or of 50%, but neither is satisfactory for this purpose. We could also take an average approach: instead of dividing the difference (10-5=5) by the initial amount (5) or by the final amount (10), we divide by the average ((5+10)/2 = 7.5). Then we get 5/7.5 = 67% relative change. In fact though, the optimal method from the perspective of game theory here, and the conceptually correct method in general, is to use not the arithmetic mean but the geometric mean. We consider the number of voters per rep both before and after adding the next seat and take the geometric mean. And it is state with THIS maximum value that most deserves the next seat.

Okay, I was wondering how older elections would have gone using the proposed NPVIC. Would it have changed anything other than wildly changing the winner's number of electoral votes? Would it make Reagan win by more? Would it have made Nixon beat Kennedy or would everything be the same? There's a video to put in a spreadsheet, all the elections from 1952 till 2016 (the post WWII elections) in NPVIC vs way they are normally done vs proportionate allotment (this last is for seeing how many third parties would get electors).

So, at 2 minutes and 30 seconds you are showing how many people there are per EC vote. How does that compare to number of people per House of Representative? Is there similar comparisons to which state is most represented and which is least? EDIT: Okay, I should watch more of the video.

Quick thought/question, in't the formula for this wrong? In proportional ares indeed its close enough to right, but in first past the post gets everything, wouldn't the fomula be closer to (population/2) / number of ec

Just a newbie here, but the spreadsheet got me to wondering how predicting the state with the most likely increase in population (using population models) can identify states most likely to move up on priority. There must be a way to tag these differences (future predicted population minus future constant population) and see the descending order. Those states at the top are the most likely place to gain a new seat and should be prioritized for political advantage, based on predicted population shifts. I guess then you could target more swing/undecided districts in those states to see where to target marketing/message (target rich). I'm just saying the chart might be useful for political considerations, outside of my poorly worded example. Great video - wonderful to watch.

What if the “minimum number” started at 3 and accounted for senate seats in these calculations? Would that change anything for the mid-population states?

I'm sorry Grey. I love your work. I've watched the Tesla feature twice. At nine minutes in I just can't do it anymore. Thanks for all the wonderful work you do.

Also, I know he'll never see this, but eh fuck it, whatever.

Huntingon-Hill method is not significantly different from just picking who is "the worst off"... A/sqrt(a(a+1)) ≈ A/sqrt(a^2) = A/a, which is the simple method. The two methods turn out about the same in the end, only two changes larger than one seat if we were to switch to simple method (TX -2 and CA -3). I did some spreadsheeting myself. If we switched to apportionment using the simple method and the 2010 census data, these changes would occur (with all states not listed having no change in seats): CA -3, DE +1, FL -1, GA -1, ID +1, IA +1, LA +1, MO +1, MT +1, NY -1, OK +1, OR +1, SD +1, TX -2, WA -1

It would have been nice to see how the result differs from what you'd get by following the first algorithm you proposed, just gviving the next seat to whoever has the least per capita.

If you watched this whole video, you'd love the Center for Election Science. We're a 501(c)3 dedicated to improving the way we vote. We recently passed Approval Voting in Fargo, ND, and have a campaign in St. Louis, MO for the 2020 ballot. We're also a collection of voting scientists, and love discussion the various benefits and intricacies of how we currently vote, and how we could vote for a more optimal outcome. Check out electionscience.org

This really should have just been a simple python script, not an ugly spreadsheet. Spreadsheets look simple to do at first, but they are really limiting and force you to do ugly hacks. Just code this in python, and solve it automatically. I bet that would have taken at most an hour.

Here's an example to show why grey's method of giving the next seat to the least represented state doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny in some cases. Imagine the following scenario. State A has 1 person and 1 seat. Ratio is 1 seat per person. State B has 300 person and 301 seats. Ratio is a tiny bit over one seat per person. Better representation than state A. State C has 300 person and 302 seats. Ratio is a tiny bit higher than B's and also better than A's. The seats per person ratio is the worst in state A but if you give them a new seat (as per cgpgrey's suggestion) it makes it way worse than giving an extra seat to state B instead because state A would jump from one seat per person to two seats! So much better than state B and C.

The method discussed actually makes a lot of sense and there's a simple way to understand how it works. First, you start with the 309,183,463 population and divide it equally between the 435 seats in the house. That means, ideally, every seat should represent 710,767 people. If you take the population of each state and divide it by 710,767, and round to the nearest whole number, you will get the number of seats for each state. When you do that, you get 433 seats filled. The next two seats go to the states who are closest to getting the next seat. At this point, you take the population of the state, divide it by 710,767 and look where the decimal is closest to 0.5 without going over. Those states are Minnesota and Rhode Island. As you noted at the end, the next state that would get an elector is North Carolina. Another way to look at it is every 710,767 people in a state gives them a seat in the House. Then, starting with the state that is closest to getting another seat will get one more seat in the house, continuing down until all the seats are filled. The method is simply a way to mathematically represent this equitable distribution of seats.

Sacre Bleu. A spreadsheet on VNclip without Matt Parker. There is probably a way to view this as a collection of multidimensional points, with an operation that minimises their distances, or perhaps maximum radius, according to some metric. It probably doesn't have to be run incrementally.

Something tells me if you were to ask every congressional representative how this system works, only a small fraction would be able to give you so much as a vague outline. "Look, I just campaign in a popularity contest and either the numbers people tell me I win or they don't."

Jackninja53 giờ trướcNo wonder Texas wants to leave.

Flavius Aetius3 giờ trướcI just wrote a 15 page paper on why the electoral college is actually great ;)

thanks grey for going into a lot of nitty gritty for me, it really allowed me to get my ideas out there

I think the problem ultimately comes down too; 1) do you like seperation of powers 2) do you like representatives 3) should states matter?

for

1) theres the British system, one legislature, I think they do matter though

2) plebiscite clauses have their place, not for literally everything though...

3) state should matter! regional issues are a thing!!

if you believe in one, you believe in the electoral college, and not the popular vote :D

PopeLando20 giờ trướcI had an idea to illustrate the apportionment of seats by showing the states climbing up the priority list (in Javascript), a couple of years ago really. Seeing this inspired me to get it done! www.gogococo.co.uk/apportion

MichaelNgày trước...the data scientist in me, partly appreciates the ingenuity, but another part me looks in horror. I just think of my co-workers I support doing this...

Agodawg OceanNgày trướcWhat woukd happen if you kept adding seats? Would it ever reach a range smaller than 10,000?

Nathan Guava4 ngày trướcYou should monetise more I could easily watch more ads for this level of content

Jacob Young4 ngày trướcPlease put in ads we want you to make money

teddy boragina5 ngày trước^{+1}17:22 okay, now we are talkin *pulls seat closer*

BenglD5 ngày trướcdoenst this belong to cgp play?

Kinglink Reviews6 ngày trướcYour such a nerd you made a 42 minute video explaining Apportionment and how you're not going to explain apportionment! And then added each of those states one by one. NERD!!!!

And then I sat here and watch the entire thing... I need better things to do with my life.... oh well when's the next video? :)

Dan9 ngày trướcSo I can't help but wonder about the systems used before the Huntington Hill method, and how final votes might have changed if we redistributed the electoral votes from those elections using the Huntington Hill method.

How might history have been different if we had better math, earlier?

Jon Watte10 ngày trướcSpreadsheets are the most used programming environment in the world.

And they're not just functional, but functional-reactive!

Who says functional programming is hard?

Hugo Garcao10 ngày trước38:00 Grey mentioning hattricks got me thinking, how did hattricks get their name, it feels like there's a story behind that name.

I looked it up, so, random fact:

Hat-trick once referred to a magician consecutively taking 3 rabbits out of his hat.

The term was used in sports for the first time in a cricket game in 1858

Dias Amreé10 ngày trướchey, could you please explain the impeachment process of the POTUS?

M B11 ngày trướcSomeone needs to make a 50v50 state's fighting tournament video series

Lucas Dingman11 ngày trước“Spreadsheets are a bicycle for the mind”

memojr444411 ngày trướcwhy didn't you order it by number of wins it would have been easier IMO

Drew Spencer Penrose11 ngày trước^{+1}Spreadsheet ASMR

David Perrier12 ngày trướcThey also take votes from states like California and give them to Wyoming

Jon Parkes12 ngày trướcHuge fan of CGP Grey, but I must admit even I started to skip after 25 minutes... one can't help but think you could have found a faster macro programme - I recommend WinAutomation Pro... doh, but you use a Mac ;-)

Punching out the Amplifier13 ngày trước^{+1}Gotta say I really enjoyed this. I also realized once again that it is no wonder your videos take so long. Not that that is a bad thing in itself, you have a passion and excitement for learning and understanding which really shines through.

And whilst I really enjoy your scripted content, I would love to see more of this type of ramble-y, non-animated stuff as well to tie me over. More please!

EebstertheGreat13 ngày trướcYour method is a bit naive. It considers only the inequity in apportionment before adding the next seat, not the inequity after adding it. The Huntington-Hill method considers both.

Think of it sort of like this. If you increase something from 5 to 10, you have doubled it--a relative increase of 100%. But if you decrease something from 10 to 5, you have halved it--a relative decrease of 50%. How can we describe the "relative difference" between 5 and 10? There are multiple ways to do it. We might say there is relative difference of 100% or of 50%, but neither is satisfactory for this purpose. We could also take an average approach: instead of dividing the difference (10-5=5) by the initial amount (5) or by the final amount (10), we divide by the average ((5+10)/2 = 7.5). Then we get 5/7.5 = 67% relative change.

In fact though, the optimal method from the perspective of game theory here, and the conceptually correct method in general, is to use not the arithmetic mean but the geometric mean. We consider the number of voters per rep both before and after adding the next seat and take the geometric mean. And it is state with THIS maximum value that most deserves the next seat.

Yang Gang13 ngày trướcElectoral college would be much more proportional if the number of congressional seats wasn't capped arbitrarily last century.

R. Frank Bass13 ngày trướcwhat am I doing watching this? I have an essay due two weeks ago, and I haven't any more than a sentence done.

Emme14 ngày trước"Literally nobody cares: the video"

Benjamin Abruzzo14 ngày trướcOkay, I was wondering how older elections would have gone using the proposed NPVIC. Would it have changed anything other than wildly changing the winner's number of electoral votes? Would it make Reagan win by more? Would it have made Nixon beat Kennedy or would everything be the same?

There's a video to put in a spreadsheet, all the elections from 1952 till 2016 (the post WWII elections) in NPVIC vs way they are normally done vs proportionate allotment (this last is for seeing how many third parties would get electors).

Benjamin Abruzzo14 ngày trướcSo, at 2 minutes and 30 seconds you are showing how many people there are per EC vote. How does that compare to number of people per House of Representative? Is there similar comparisons to which state is most represented and which is least?

EDIT: Okay, I should watch more of the video.

Martin Manscher15 ngày trướcIt was originally Arr-Kansas, and the state was founded by pirates

Neale Wolfson15 ngày trướcQuick thought/question, in't the formula for this wrong?

In proportional ares indeed its close enough to right, but in first past the post gets everything, wouldn't the fomula be closer to (population/2) / number of ec

Spiffy Turtle15 ngày trướcYou really love this states rights thing eh?

Got a a confederate flag up in your bedroom no doubt

Justin O'Brien15 ngày trướcThe takeaway is that partisan politics, inevitable as it is, is _the_ problem.

ironmaz115 ngày trướcFun! I learned from Martin Shkreli that spreadsheets can be exciting, when they're good... and this one is damn good! thanks :)

Stefan Kecina15 ngày trước^{+1}Dude i love this video, please make more videos like this

TheHylianBatman16 ngày trướcThat was long and peaceful, I really liked that.

Andrew Longhofer16 ngày trướcSerious question: why Numbers rather than Excel? As a spreadsheet enthusiast, what are the pros and cons of each?

Kinkajou101517 ngày trước^{+3}"Adoptive state of North Carolina"

You have piqued my interest. As a North Cackalackian, story please? Or if you've done video, linky please?

Kinkajou101515 ngày trước@Cooper Smithson Music I see then.

Cooper Smithson Music15 ngày trước^{+1}Kinkajou1015 pretty sure his family's from there, I think that's where he went in the "Summer of Grey" series

Terry DeRoche18 ngày trướcJust a newbie here, but the spreadsheet got me to wondering how predicting the state with the most likely increase in population (using population models) can identify states most likely to move up on priority. There must be a way to tag these differences (future predicted population minus future constant population) and see the descending order. Those states at the top are the most likely place to gain a new seat and should be prioritized for political advantage, based on predicted population shifts. I guess then you could target more swing/undecided districts in those states to see where to target marketing/message (target rich). I'm just saying the chart might be useful for political considerations, outside of my poorly worded example. Great video - wonderful to watch.

Valkling FriendofAllThings18 ngày trướcThat is an awesome spreadsheet. I am defiantly going to be downloading this and playing around with it.

Mennotic18 ngày trước^{+1}What if the “minimum number” started at 3 and accounted for senate seats in these calculations? Would that change anything for the mid-population states?

ButterKing18 ngày trướcCould you possibly do a video on the possible effect of having more than 435 house seats, and the effect it would have on politics as a whole?

KaptenN18 ngày trướcGrey incrementing values in a spreadsheet ASMR.

Ocarina65419 ngày trướcI'm sorry Grey. I love your work. I've watched the Tesla feature twice. At nine minutes in I just can't do it anymore. Thanks for all the wonderful work you do.

Also, I know he'll never see this, but eh fuck it, whatever.

hwlyzqs19 ngày trướcHuntingon-Hill method is not significantly different from just picking who is "the worst off"... A/sqrt(a(a+1)) ≈ A/sqrt(a^2) = A/a, which is the simple method. The two methods turn out about the same in the end, only two changes larger than one seat if we were to switch to simple method (TX -2 and CA -3).

I did some spreadsheeting myself. If we switched to apportionment using the simple method and the 2010 census data, these changes would occur (with all states not listed having no change in seats):

CA -3, DE +1, FL -1, GA -1, ID +1, IA +1, LA +1, MO +1, MT +1, NY -1, OK +1, OR +1, SD +1, TX -2, WA -1

clynton keel19 ngày trướcOddly compelling to watch..

Gladdig19 ngày trướcIt would have been nice to see how the result differs from what you'd get by following the first algorithm you proposed, just gviving the next seat to whoever has the least per capita.

DefeatDeception19 ngày trướcI always appreciate the New Mexico flag love, Grey!

Love this broken-in-some-ways-and-beautiful-in-many-others state.

Nicholas McKay19 ngày trướcThe 435 rule is stupid. They should just set a minimum at 1 and add members until the relative population approaches the least-populated state.

Juan Carlos Andreu19 ngày trướcIn the state vs state region of the sheet, the green cell is always the left one. D:

Felix Sargent19 ngày trướcIf you watched this whole video, you'd love the Center for Election Science. We're a 501(c)3 dedicated to improving the way we vote. We recently passed Approval Voting in Fargo, ND, and have a campaign in St. Louis, MO for the 2020 ballot. We're also a collection of voting scientists, and love discussion the various benefits and intricacies of how we currently vote, and how we could vote for a more optimal outcome. Check out electionscience.org

altimking19 ngày trướca 43 Minute "footnote"? lol

Águila70120 ngày trướcTL;DW

noleti20 ngày trướcThis really should have just been a simple python script, not an ugly spreadsheet. Spreadsheets look simple to do at first, but they are really limiting and force you to do ugly hacks. Just code this in python, and solve it automatically. I bet that would have taken at most an hour.

Roger Norling20 ngày trước@CGP Grey screw the spreadsheet (ok, actually not, but,) I want the source for those two papers! please?

nitramyte20 ngày trướcHere's an example to show why grey's method of giving the next seat to the least represented state doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny in some cases.

Imagine the following scenario.

State A has 1 person and 1 seat. Ratio is 1 seat per person.

State B has 300 person and 301 seats. Ratio is a tiny bit over one seat per person. Better representation than state A.

State C has 300 person and 302 seats. Ratio is a tiny bit higher than B's and also better than A's.

The seats per person ratio is the worst in state A but if you give them a new seat (as per cgpgrey's suggestion) it makes it way worse than giving an extra seat to state B instead because state A would jump from one seat per person to two seats! So much better than state B and C.

jwdataspot20 ngày trướcThe method discussed actually makes a lot of sense and there's a simple way to understand how it works. First, you start with the 309,183,463 population and divide it equally between the 435 seats in the house. That means, ideally, every seat should represent 710,767 people. If you take the population of each state and divide it by 710,767, and round to the nearest whole number, you will get the number of seats for each state. When you do that, you get 433 seats filled. The next two seats go to the states who are closest to getting the next seat. At this point, you take the population of the state, divide it by 710,767 and look where the decimal is closest to 0.5 without going over. Those states are Minnesota and Rhode Island. As you noted at the end, the next state that would get an elector is North Carolina.

Another way to look at it is every 710,767 people in a state gives them a seat in the House. Then, starting with the state that is closest to getting another seat will get one more seat in the house, continuing down until all the seats are filled. The method is simply a way to mathematically represent this equitable distribution of seats.

W. Brian Lane20 ngày trước^{+2}"I'm a big fan of spreadsheets, and a fan of big spreadsheets!"

Vyrkhan20 ngày trướcWhy I'm watching this if I'm not even american? lol

Paul McGee20 ngày trướcSacre Bleu. A spreadsheet on VNclip without Matt Parker.

There is probably a way to view this as a collection of multidimensional points, with an operation that minimises their distances, or perhaps maximum radius, according to some metric.

It probably doesn't have to be run incrementally.

Paul McGee20 ngày trướcDid CP already cover this apportionment previously? or was it somebody else?

JoeNoshow2720 ngày trướcSomething tells me if you were to ask every congressional representative how this system works, only a small fraction would be able to give you so much as a vague outline. "Look, I just campaign in a popularity contest and either the numbers people tell me I win or they don't."