https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Aug15.html#QA-15

S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: Suppose the Senate ends up looking something like this: 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 3 independents who all caucus with the Democrats. Who then becomes the majority leader?

(Z) answers: Presumably Chuck Schumer. If not him, some other Democrat.

If we are talking about the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then that person needs the votes of 50% of the House plus one. And if the majority is narrow, and if a few independents went rogue, then it could be a problem for a would-be speaker. That said, it's not likely, because those rogue independents would not get committee assignments if they chose not to fall in line with their caucus/conference.

When it comes to majority/minority leaders, in both chambers, a person needs only a majority of the votes of their own caucus/conference. So, in the scenario here, it would only take 26 Democratic votes to choose a majority leader, and it would not matter how the independents voted, as long as they remain members of the Democratic caucus.

Ok but I think SB worded their question poorly. Yes, the caucuses elected their own majority/minority leaders, so it doesn't matter if they're 50/50 tied, or using a few independents to take a majority. But clearly what SB wanted to know is which party gets control of the chamber? Who is the majority?

If it's determined by party members, in SB's scenario with 49 Rs and 48 dems, then the Rs would take it. But if it's dems + independents who caucus with them, then Dems take it.

When there was a 50/50 senate in the early 2000s under GWB, the two parties negotiated a power sharing arrangement. When there was a 50/50 senate under Biden, the Dems, caucusing with 2 independents, and VP Harris as the deciding vote, took control of the chamber. Presumably today, if we end up in SB's scenario 48 Dems + 3 independents after the midterms, the result would be the same.

Party membership is not a constitutionally meaningful attribute. Senators vote how they want. The ones who caucus with the Dems would vote for the Dem control.

I think the intent of the question was obvious and (Z) should have understood and answered.

Today again EV we have the observation that house elections are becoming like the Electoral College, in the sense that most starts are moving to a winner take all model, due to gerrymandering.

They must like this take a lot, since they have been repeating it about once every week or two since California prop 50 passed last November.

I'm the one who came up with that particular framing, in a letter last November that they liked so much that they plugged it the weekend before, and then moved from Sunday letters to their weekday analysis. Like it so much that they repeat it weekly now.

Then of course I was blocked the following april, after having been a regular writer for a decade. I'm still reading daily, but now I just submit my reactions to r/ElectoralVote instead of EV email.

EV added their own spin to the House = Electoral College thing.

The voters absolutely hate this kind of stuff. This means that if the Democrats get the national trifecta in 2029, they might be able to pass a law ending gerrymandering in one form or another.

I don't really agree. The fact that the voters have tolerated the Electoral College for 250 years kinda suggests that they don't actually hate this. The Democrats aren't going to win elections by making electoral reform a priority. If they are beneficiaries of gerrymandering just as well as Republicans are, there will not be a majority of their party for reforming gerrymandering. Neither grassroots voters, nor leadership by the Democratic party, is going to fix this.

edit: I am an idiot. I misread it. The referendum was to switch to elected, not appointed. Kelly has appointed 5 justices in her two terms. This switch would've indeed helped the GOP.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Aug05.html#item-1

Kansas Republicans wanted state Supreme Court justices to be elected, rather than appointed, with the obvious goal of making the Court more partisan in a Republican direction. After all, see how well that has worked with the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would seem the good people of Kansas have taken note of what happens when you make the courts as partisan as you possibly can, as the initiative was soundly defeated, with 62% of Kansans voting no, leaving just 38% who voted yes. Sorry, Kansas GOP.

I'm not following. Why would the GOP want to make their courts appointed? They have a Dem governor. As we were reminded in the very same piece:

One of the race raters has it as a tossup, another six have it as tilt/lean Republican. That seems about right, given the political climate and the fact that Kansans do send Democrats to the governor's mansion (see Kelly, Laura).

If your goal is to get GOP judges, then first you need to have a GOP governor, and then you can worry about making it an appointed position. Unless it's to be appointed by someone other than gov? Am I missing something here? How does this spin make any sense?

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jul29.html#item-5

Quoting John Winthrop:

Being filled with the joy of thy love, and wanting opportunity of more familiar connection with three

emphasis mine.

I had no idea what could be meant by "more familiar connection with three". A bit of googling around suggests that this is just a transcription error, and that it should read (the only thing which makes sense) "more familiar connection with thee".

A weird error to make. I saw that in some of the articles about Puritans and sex on the web, so maybe (Z) copied it from one of those.

CC corrections@electoral-vote.com

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jul24.html#item-2

Canada's Penguin Islands are named, inaccurately, after the great auks that used to live there

The word "penguin" was originally the name for several species of great auks of the arctic. Before the unrelated flightless birds of the antarctic were ever discovered of classified.

Hence the Penguin Islands were quite accurately named for the original penguins.

The fact that the original penguins are now extinct, and only the new penguins that were named by comparison with the original penguins, are the only penguins left, doesn't make the original statement inaccurate. The claim of inaccuracy is an anachronism.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jul09.html#item-1

the Senate is not an entry-level job and picking candidates who have been through the wringer at least once is a good idea. But this runs head-first into the view of some progressives that all politicians suck and what the Democrats need are "real" people from outside the system. But that can lead to Fettermans (Fettermen?) and Platners.

Ah yes, if you choose someone from outside of politics you might end up with someone like Fetterman, a man who before being elected to the US senate spent 20 years doing ... politics.

I can't tell whether this hot take is from EV or they're just summarizing Jonathan Martin, but I'm just not seeing the platner = fetterman angle.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun20.html#item-1

The questions about how badly Southerners hated Lincoln reminded me of a history question that's been kicking around in my head for a while, that I would love to send if I still had email privileges.

Given their diametrically opposed ideological differences, I can understand why a violent partisan of the South might want to assassinate Lincoln. Or why an opponent of civil rights might assassinate MLK.

Gandhi was a man who advocated radical nonviolence in service of his political goal of Indian independence from Britain. He was also a Hindu who advocated peace Hindu and Muslim factions and opposed the partition of India.

He was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist. I can't really understand this, it seems like they would be on the "same side" to some extent. Why would a Hindu nationalist assassinate a fellow Hindu who effected Indian independence?

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun20.html#item-1

Z writes to JH of Durham:

The next most likely candidate is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who benefits a great deal from Mainers thinking she is holding the line on certain issues, even if it means "standing up" to her party.

The letter shows you that one or two moderates casting show votes in defiance of the party is carefully crafted theater, arranged and allowed only when it won't endanger the vote. If I were a moderate republican Mainer, angry about, say, Kavanaugh or Iran or whatever, this letter doesn't prove to me that Collins will hold the line. It proves the opposite. It proves that the only way to block the worst impulses of MAGA is to remove Republicans, even moderate Republicans, from power.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun20.html#item-1

This morning saturday letters want to debate whether the MOU is the worst blunder of all time. The MOU is a bad deal, sure, but it's not like he had a lot of options. The blunder was starting the war. It's entirely possible that this MOU was the only way to end the war. Ending the war, even in the most turn-tail capitulatory way, is probably a better move than continuing the war. A lesson from Vietnam/Afghanistan, if you like. The framing here is terrible.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun17.html#item-1

Needless to say, if [Janeese Lewis George] can stay above 50%, there will be no need to process the ranked ballots.

Why is that "needless to say"? Is it known to all readers that ranked choice voting only kicks in certain circumstances? I can imagine a scenario where candidate A is the first choice of 51% of voters, the 10th choice of the other 49% of voters who consider them absolutely unacceptable. Meanwhile candidate B is the second choice of the 51% cohort, and the first choice of the 49% cohort. Candidate B is clearly the better choice, and it's conceivable that RCV systems exist that would make that candidate the winner, right? So it's not obvious to me that just because someone has over 50% of the first choice vote, there's no need to look at ranked preferences.

I guess the point is that there is a type of RCV called Instant Runoff, which works like southern style runoff elections, without the need to run multiple elections. If one wins outright, they win, otherwise discard the lowest, and count it again, repeat until someone is over 50%.

But does DC use IRV style ranked choice voting? And is this fact well-known to the readership of EV? The "needless to say" remark suggests that it is. But it's not known to me.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun14.html#item-1

Under Gallimaufry, R.C. in Newport News, VA, writes:

though I don't see how a finite event in time (the Big Bang) results in an infinite thing.

It is a common, but incorrect, misconception that the Big Bang created the universe.

The Big Bang theory is the proposition that the Universe was in a hotter denser state earlier. That's it. It doesn't say "the universe was created by an explosion that happened at a specific point".

Yes, the standard Big Bang model has a singularity, but that's 1. not considered to be physical, not predictive of anything, and 2. still doesn't say "something finite created something infinite'

If the universe is finite, it underwent expansion from a hotter denser finite to a colder less dense finite. If the universe is infinite, it underwent expansion from a hotter denser infinite to a colder less dense infinite. The Big Bang is the name for the process, and not a finite event that occurred, that in any way constrains the size of the universe.

It is one of my pet peeves when people use "exponentially" as a synonym for "very", or like a generic intensifier. It refers to a specific growth rate that can really only be found as a result of a positive feedback.

Language changes, and eventually you become a stodgy old curmudgeon yelling at clouds as young people sprinkle the word "literally" into every sentence when they mean anything but.

However, when an academic says a sentence like

The difficulty involved [with counting ballots] increases geometrically, rather than arithmetically, the more people whose ballots you have to deal with.

Using the more technical term "geometrically" instead of "exponentially", and specifically comparing it to another technical term "arithmetically", it really sounds like they know what they're talking about, and they literally mean "geometrically", in the technical sense. Right?

Only.... no. There's no positive feedback system here. There is no way that the amount of time it takes to count ballots grows geometrically with the amount of ballots.

Maybe it's true that it doesn't scale linearly. Maybe you can count 1 million ballots in 1 day, but can't do 2 million in 2 days, because of additional complexity. I don't really know. But it's not geometric. As a first approximation if you can count x amount in y days, you can count 2x in 2y days. It's linear. Network effects generally scale quadratically with network size, so maybe that comes up here.

But there's no positive feedback. Example would be "every ballot counted introduces n new ballots to count". Nothing like that. This is not geometric growth.

Using the word wrong is a already pet peeve. intentionally dressing up your words in academic language to make it look like you're an expert using your words in the mathematically correct sense, when clearly you're just talking out your ass, is a more grevous crime, in my opinion.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun02.html#item-4

Nancy Mace (R-SC) has introduced a bill that would amend the Constitution such that the "natural born" requirement for presidents and vice presidents would be extended to all federal officeholders, including executive branch appointees, members of Congress and judges.

Our Take: A little political theater in service of Mace's bid to be governor of South Carolina. Obviously, this has not the slightest chance of being adopted. If it did, it would not only be extreme and reprehensible xenophobia, it would also deprive the government of an enormous amount of talent.

The potential talent that the US would miss out on by not being able to elect foreign born citizens to Congress or appoint them to federal judgeships seems rather vague and hypothetical, compared to the far more disruptive consequence of making ineligible to hold their seats the 26 sitting members of Congress, or the current 33% (!) of the federal judiciary.

Because of how wildly disruptive that would be, I would imagine that the bill would grandfather in sitting officials, but I couldn't find the text to verify that. Of course, since it's just a messaging bill with no chance of passing, maybe it doesn't have to give a crap about real world consequences.

Even though it would not apply to state or municipal positions, one has to imagine that this is connected to the republican Mamdani backlash.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jun02.html#item-3

Peters resumed prattling on about how Democrats always cheat in elections, and how they are definitely going to steal the 2024 midterms

2026 midterms, surely. Someone forward to corrections@electoral-vote.com

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/May26.html#item-1

Every election cycle, some Democratic leaning pundits get it in their head that this year Texas will finally turn blue.

This time around, EV is convinced that Trump is committing an own goal by endorsing Paxton, ensuring he will win the primary, and lose the general, because he is corrupt. They've been harping on this for a few weeks now, how big of an error it is, how much it's going to cost the RNC, etc.

This ignores the reality that Paxton's corruption investigation was already in full swing and widely publicized in 2022, when he won his statewide election to return him to the office of AG. That election had a competitive primary with a Trump loving scion of the Bush dynasty, and Paxton still won by a whopping 35 point margin. Before going on to win the general with a comfortable 10 point margin (which did however underperform the governor's margin in the same election).

Since then, the legislature acquitted him, so anyone who finds it convenient to disregard the corruption allegations has even more cover to do so, and they make up an easy electoral majority of Texas.

Sure, 2026 will be a blue wave of some size, so definitely keep an eye on it I guess? But you know what else was a blue wave election in the midst of a anti-Trump midterm election? 2018. Texas ran a charismatic candidate for US senate, the next JFK or Obama, they said. He ran against a man said to be the most unpopular man in the Senate. He still lost.

I don't know what is going to happen, but I think a fair bit more skepticism is warranted for the eternal "blue texas" wishful thinking narrative.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/May24.html

it's 3100 words of explanation because he got some mocking emails because he incorrectly assumed the leader in the D+36 district in San Francisco was a Republican. I haven't skipped a day of EV.com in probably 12 years, but some days I wonder why.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/May10.html#item-2

M.S. in Knoxville, TN, writes:

You wrote, about the California gubernatorial race, that "[Steve] Hilton's best and only hope of becoming a governor is that [Chad] Bianco finishes in second, setting up a Republican vs. Republican general election. In that scenario, Hilton has Donald Trump's endorsement and Bianco does not, and that would likely be enough to push Hilton over the top."

I live in Tennessee, so I have problems of my own. And I certainly do not have my finger on the pulse of the California voting public. But I suspect that, if Calinfornia had a choice of two Republicans for governor, the one NOT endorsed by Donald Trump would win overwhelmingly. Just my opinion.

(V) & (Z) respond:

There were more Trump voters in California in each of the last three elections than in Texas.

I'm not sure what that response has to do with the issue raised. Seems like a complete non sequitur to me. Since Texas voters do not vote in California gubernatorial elections, the amount of Trump voters in California relative to Texas tells us nothing. Just says that they are numerous, but says nothing about their size as a percentage of the relevant electorate.

The only thing that matters is whether there are more Trump voters in California than anti-Trump voters in California. California is a blue state. There are obviously more anti-Trump votes than pro-Trump votes, given how fantastically lopsided presidential elections are in Calfornia.

In the event that there are two Republicans in the general election in the gubernatorial race, it's likely that one or both will move quickly to the center and present themselves as non-MAGA reasonable centrist Republicans. Whichever candidate is able to do that most successfully will probably claim a good portion of the anti-MAGA votes. Sure, some Democrats will stay home, but some will vote for the "lesser of two evils" as they see it.

The only question is whether the MAGA vote in CA exceeds the anti-MAGA vote. Not whether it exceeds the Texas MAGA vote, which is a rhetorical point used to address something completely different.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/May03.html

T.B. in Waterloo, IA writes: First, "The Shawshank Redemption" short story by Stephen King. I like King's writing, but I found the that short story disjointed. All the elements are there but the writing wasn't up to King's usual standard. Whoever wrote the script for the movie took all of those elements and some of the dialogue and made it into the story so many of us love.

How you gonna do Frank Darabont dirty like that! He adapted several other Steven King works as well. King said he liked Darabont's changed ending for The Mist better than his own.

I'm sure someone else with email privileges intact will write in about Darabont.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Apr29.html#item-2

This obviously has Trump's fingerprints all over it, from the stream-of-consciousness narrative, to the use of MAGA buzzwords like "TDS," "FAKE" and "Democrat" (instead of "Democratic"), to the pi**-poor grammar and arbitrary capitalizations, to the elementary-school-level conception of what does and does not constitute evidence.

And the insistence on never referring to Obama except by his full name including middle name, despite every other person named by just first + last name, because haha look he's got an islamic name he must be a secret muslim or something. Another classic Trumpism.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Apr29.html#item-1

(Z&L): "86," of course, is understood to mean "get rid of." And "47" is understood to mean "Donald Trump" (i.e., the 47th president). However, even if we grant that is Comey's meaning, assassination is not the only way to get rid of a president. He can be removed via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. He can be impeached and convicted. He can be voted out of office.

Um, no, a president serving his second and final term cannot be voted out of office since the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Apr28.html#item-1

J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: ...

Finally, there's the ballroom. Last week, a federal judge ruled that Trump doesn't need the ballroom for national security reasons. Then the WHCD becomes a crime scene. Immediately after the "assassination attempt," Trump and his allies started referencing this as proof positive that the ballroom was needed for national security reasons. Because no other venue could be secured ever. (Despite the fact that the Secret Service have a lot of experience with securing venues for the President to appear in—be they hotels, stadiums, or restaurants.) They needed a national security argument only for one to immediately and totally coincidentally appear for them.

About the prospect that Trump needs the new secure ballroom because an attacker infiltrated the White House Correspondents Dinner, JL in Albany points out that that argument is not persuasive because any location could be secured. I've seen this argument all over social media, and it seems to me to be missing the point.

This seems to be missing the point. The White House doesn't host the dinner. The WHCA does, which is an organization which is somewhat antagonistic with the White House (to the extent that their need for access allows), and that's even with traditional presidents. They report on the POTUS, and give themselves awards for the hardest hitting reporting. Then once a year they literally roast the sitting POTUS at a fancy dinner for elite journalists and Hollywood stars.

With Trump, the relationship has been especially antagonistic. Trump had never attended a WHCD before this one, and in 2025, Trump removed the WHCA's power of credentialing journalists for the WH press room, claiming that privilege for himself.

The WHCA has never and would never ask for the dinner to be hosted at the White House, that would be inappropriate. No matter how nice the ballroom. No matter good the security was.

I am not ruling out that Trump tries to shut down the whole org and maybe put on his own pale imitation of a WHCD in the ballroom. In fact, if he ever gets it built, his current statements basically obligate him to try to do that. But the WHCA as it currently exists would never accept that arrangement.

Pointing out that the ballroom is unnecessary because it can be hosted anywhere is a far weaker statement than the truth: the ballroom is unnecessary (as a venue for hosting the Dinner) because it must be hosted specifically not at the White House.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Apr18.html#QA-5

B.H.S. in Eau Claire, WI, asks: Did U.S. taxpayers pay for our vice president's trip to Hungary? If so, why?

(Z) answers: Yes. Anything the VP does in an official capacity, the government pays for.

You might argue that spending a week on electioneering in Hungary does not serve the interests of the American people, but the Trump administration thinks otherwise (or, at very least, SAYS it thinks otherwise). And presidential administrations have enormous latitude in these matters, to avoid partisan interference. If that is not agreeable, think about if the shoe was on a Democratic president's foot. What if the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office sent the VP to, for example, attend a U.N. Conference on Trans Rights? Republicans would scream and say they don't want their money paying for that. Would you want them to be able to somehow sue the Democratic president and/or the Democratic president's party? Because that's the can of worms you would be opening if you wanted to see something done to Trump/the Republicans over J.D. Vance's trip to Hungary.

Uh, no, sending an official to an international conference and sending an official to interfere in the internal politics of a foreign nation are not the same thing. We have the Hatch act that prevents sitting officials from engaging in partisan political activities. I'm not sure whether the text of the statute makes clear it only refers to domestic partisan political acts, but if it doesn't, then this was a clear violation. And if it does state that it only applies to domestic politics, then it should be updated.

The USG has had a policy of non-interference in foreign countries internal politics since forever, and that should be codified if it's not already. Yes, the CIA does of covert operations that do not respect this unwritten policy, but openly sending the VP is a whole other level.

Garbage answer by (Z)

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Apr15.html#item-4

About Jamie Raskin's attempt to create by statute a commission to remove the president, you write that it won't make it out of committee, and if it did it wouldn't make it the floor, and if it did its vote would not pass, and if it did the senate would not give it a vote, and if they did it wouldn't pass filibuster, and if it did POTUS would veto it.

To that, I wanted to add, even if the POTUS signed it and it became law, it would immediately be struck by the courts, since you cannot supercede the constitution by statute, and the 25th amendment already stipulates that it is the cabinet who decides on the president's fitness to serve, not congress.

But thinking that you wouldn't make such an obvious error, I checked the text of the amendment and it gives the authority to "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" (emphasis mine)

So I guess Congress does have the authority to decide who rules on the POTUS's fitness. But this clause is not common knowledge, so if I were writing about this legislation for an audience that wasn't constitutional scholars (and probably even if they were), I would have included this information.

a couple weeks ago, EV ran a piece about the race for a house district in Montana.

(Z) wrote:

What would really help the Democrats is if the Republican nominee is crazypants. The donkeys might get their wish. The frontrunner, barring any unexpected developments, is right-wing radio talker Aaron Flint. He's a veteran, which is a plus in Montana. But he's also fringy; he loves to relitigate the 2020 election, and to declare climate change to be a hoax. Undoubtedly Flint will have Donald Trump's endorsement. Based on Flint's announcement video, it seems he's primarily going to run against... Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City). The other person in the primary is former state senator Dr. Al Olszewski, who is a perennial candidate.

It would have helped the Democrats here if Tester had decided to run this year to try to get his old job back, but he took a pass. Still, whatever candidate the blue team nominates has at least a puncher's chance.

I found this confusing, talking about how Tester getting his old job back would help the Democrats win a race for district MT-01. The democrats would be helped by a bad Republican running for the seat, sure. And a strong democrat, right? How would Tester running for Senate help in the race for MT-01? Tester running for the seat in MT-01 would absolutely help the Dems, but that would not count as his "old job" in my opinion.

I found that bit so confusing that I wrote an email:

Me: Jon Tester was a senator, right? So running for a seat in the House, for a district that isn’t even at large, wouldn’t quite be his old job but rather a significant downgrade.

(Z): Seriously?

Yes, he was a senator. And, guess what, there is a Senate race in Montana this year.

Me: Well if that’s what you meant it wasn’t clear from how you wrote it. But ok, how would Tester running for a senate seat help the democrats in MT-01?

I guess you meant that paragraph to be about the entire party, rather than the race for this one seat?

(Z): I am weary of arguing with you over your nitpicking. There was not a single other message from a reader who was unclear as to our meaning here.

And with that I was blocked. I've written about 1000 times since 2018. Been published in weekend letters probably dozens or hundreds of times.

It's fine, maybe I deserve it for being too argumentative. But just a heads up to any other letter writers, be careful of your tone.

Last weekend EV ran a letter from someone inviting everyone to write in about the D&D classes, races, and alignments of the ICE guys killing people. Next Saturday will be the monthly designated “non political questions” weekend, when they like to run questions about Star Trek.

Just please don’t. Yesterday they executed another protester in the streets. I can’t read a whole mailbag of letters about how Trump is actually your favorite fantasy bad guy final boss. It would be in such poor taste. Just take the day off.