# U.S. House election 2018, Prussian style

##### it’s too hot here to think
I wondered aloud about this in my other thread on if you'd sell your right to vote: what would the House look like if the U.S. had suffrage tied to income like Prussia's three-class voting system? To keep it short, people were grouped into 1/3rds based on taxes paid. If you paid a lot of taxes, your vote was worth more.

Since exit polling doesn't ask about taxes paid, I've substituted annual income as the U.S. has a progressive tax system and those with higher incomes tend to pay more in federal income taxes. I'm using this CNN exit polling data from 2018 and further simplifying by breaking it down into 3 groups: over \$200k (9% of voters), \$100-199k (25% of voters) and everyone else. Also, I know members are elected in districts but finding income data for each of the 435 districts would be tedious to put it mildly.

The U.S. House of Representatives has 435 representatives. Divided by 3, that's 145 representatives per group.

Now the easy part, the two highest income groups: \$200k and above voted 52% Republican, 47% Democrat, and 1% no answer. No answers will be called Independent for the sake of simplicity.

The \$100-199k group voted 51% Rep., 47% Dem., and 2% no answer.

Here comes the bad part: since the bottom groups all voted differently and make up different percentages of the population, I need to calculate an average for each according to their population. I'm not sure I even explained it right, let alone capable of doing it.

My calculations for the other 67% of voters \$99k and under:

The numbers add up to 100% so maybe it's right? Math wizards, help me!

Assuming it is right, which is what I will do, then we can get to work on the easy math.

Calculations for all voters now that the 67% have been squared away:

Based on these calculations,

DEMOCRATS
are the majority party with 218 seats (-15 from today)
REPUBLICANS have gained seats but remain the minority (+11 from today)
INDEPENDENTS have gained seats (+6 from today)

What do you think, sirs?

Last edited:
But this is only 67% of voters

But this is only 67% of voters
No, those I put aggregated as “Class C.”

The breakdown goes like this:

Class A: \$200k+ (9% of pop.)
Class B: \$100-199k (25% of pop.)
Class C: under \$99k (67% of pop.)

The fact that they add up to 101% is CNN’s fault, not mine.

The first two groups I could just type in directly from the CNN exit poll data so I didn’t need to put them into the first sheet. The two sheets were made independent of each other, just rotten formatting on my part if it looks otherwise.

edit: I edited my opening post to include headers before the tables, and included more in this post about how I did it, hopefully reducing any confusion about anything missing.

Last edited:

Replies
4K
Views
119K
Replies
11
Views
697
Replies
172
Views
10K
Replies
328
Views
18K
Replies
13
Views
2K