Democrats have made a big deal about how their party received the most House votes but don't have a House majority. What if House seats were awarded this on a proportional basis, similar to a parliamentary system in other countries. Of course, if this were the case, the two parties would field better candidates, or in some cases a candidate, and spend more behind each candidate. Frequently, in districts that one candidate gets more than 60% of the vote that candidate doesn't work hard and the opposition spends virtually nothing. The vote would certainly change.
That said, how would things have gone if we translate the 2012 election? I've grouped right and left leaning groups together, assuming that a coalition would be formed.I put Bill Bloomfield in the right coalition since he was a long time Republican and major fundraiser for the party who ran against Democrat Henry Waxman. He also got 3-4 times the number of votes as the next highest independent candidates. I separated out the remaining independents and minor party candidates, not knowing where they lean. In New Jersey, candidates can run on any line they make up. I grouped "Change, Change, Change" and "Truth Vision Hope" with independents.
One thing that people touting the Democratic vote ignore is that the Libertarian party gets a good share of the remaining vote, far more than Greens get. When we pool all the right and left votes, we end up with is the left having 215-216 seats and the right having 215. It's pretty much even, depending on rounding. The left might have a majority but hardly anything like the dominant "America prefers us" that is out there in the media. We may have to wait a little longer before the country starts trending Democratic.