Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored.
Our presidential selection system has cut out 4 of every 5 people living in America from the decision. Presidential elections shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.
The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.
George Soros’ PAC as of Feb. 21, 2019 will invest $100 million in four 2020 swing states - Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Rasmussen Reports, 2/28/19 – believes only 46 electoral votes are in the Toss-up category- four states — Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus one congressional district, Nebraska’s Second (Omaha). The omissions that readers may find most surprising are Florida and Michigan. Much of the electoral map is easy to allocate far in advance: About 70% of the total electoral votes come from states and districts that have voted for the same party in at least the last five presidential elections.
The Cook Political Report, as of Jan. 10, 2019, believes “There are just five toss up states, representing 86 electoral votes: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.”
The Columbus Dispatch, as of Jan. 9, 2019, believes there will be “just seven states [with 105 electoral votes, where the winner is not predictable already] to allocate. Trump will be 66 electoral votes shy of re-election and the Democratic ticket will need 41 electoral votes to win back the presidency. The seven states are Arizona (11), Florida (29), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10).”
We can and have to walk and chew gum at the same time. Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 262 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5). Governors in 2 more states should be signing the bill into law in the next few weeks.
With statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:* Texas (62% R), 1,691,267* New York (59% D), 1,192,436* Georgia (58% R), 544,634* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778* California (55% D), 1,023,560* Illinois (55% D), 513,342 * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to campaign in any Red or Blue state, or for a Republican to campaign in any Red or Blue state.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009: “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The only way to achieve totally uniform national rules governing elections would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate state control of elections and establish uniform federal election rules. Elimination of state control of elections is not seen as a politically realistic possibility
It's going to be amazing to watch debates between Democratic candidates, who are championing real issues, and Drumpf. What's he got? Build That Wall? Lock Her Up? Coal mines! Repeal Obamacare? Muslim ban? Infrastructure Week? Bring back Janine Pirro?
Thank you toto for your in-depth analysis. Good food for thought. And you are obviously the numbers guy, so can you answer a question? It was proposed in another post that splitting each state’s EC votes proportionately might be a way within the current system to make it more fair. So would that have changed the outcomes of the recent elections where the winning candidate didn’t win the popular vote? Given that the states’ EC votes are not directly proportionate to their population, I can see ways in which it wouldn’t have necessarily changed the results.
Agree for sure, I just worry about it swinging too far the other way, where those “flyover” peoples’ votes don’t matter at all. Lots of good arguments about why that won’t be the case with a national popular vote, but I’m not completely convinced. I still feel like, given limited resources (advertising dollars, campaign workers, etc.) a candidate will focus those resources where they will have the biggest bang, and pander to the concerns of the biggest states. If the 40,000,000 people in CA and the 2,000,000 in NM both want access to more Colorado River water, which group will be more valuable to agree with? That may or may not be a good example, but the point is there are issues which divide the states based on their history and culture. Vermont isn’t just 5% of New York; it has its own state identity and concerns.
Lol, you just pointed out that 6 states have 38% of the vote. It shows that's where people would focus. Saying Trump won X states is a non-sequitur in the discussion.
Richard Melon Scaife, I hope there is a hell just so he can be spit roasted for bankrolling those 30 years of smears and the NYT for aiding and abetting due to hate of the self made "Upstarts" for daring to succeed. (instead of being born into it like Maggie.)
I do not comprehend the system that allows people to override the will of the nation because their vote is more important than individual votes...
In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states.
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored.
Our presidential selection system has cut out 4 of every 5 people living in America from the decision. Presidential elections shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.
The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.
George Soros’ PAC as of Feb. 21, 2019 will invest $100 million in four 2020 swing states - Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Rasmussen Reports, 2/28/19 – believes only 46 electoral votes are in the Toss-up category- four states — Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus one congressional district, Nebraska’s Second (Omaha). The omissions that readers may find most surprising are Florida and Michigan. Much of the electoral map is easy to allocate far in advance: About 70% of the total electoral votes come from states and districts that have voted for the same party in at least the last five presidential elections.
The Cook Political Report, as of Jan. 10, 2019, believes “There are just five toss up states, representing 86 electoral votes: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.”
The Columbus Dispatch, as of Jan. 9, 2019, believes there will be “just seven states [with 105 electoral votes, where the winner is not predictable already] to allocate. Trump will be 66 electoral votes shy of re-election and the Democratic ticket will need 41 electoral votes to win back the presidency. The seven states are Arizona (11), Florida (29), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10).”
We can and have to walk and chew gum at the same time. Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 37 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 262 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Delaware (3), and New Mexico (5). Governors in 2 more states should be signing the bill into law in the next few weeks.
Not even close.
In total New York state, Illinois, and California cast 20% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states.
With statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:* Texas (62% R), 1,691,267* New York (59% D), 1,192,436* Georgia (58% R), 544,634* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778* California (55% D), 1,023,560* Illinois (55% D), 513,342 * New Jersey (53% D), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to campaign in any Red or Blue state, or for a Republican to campaign in any Red or Blue state.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009: “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The only way to achieve totally uniform national rules governing elections would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate state control of elections and establish uniform federal election rules. Elimination of state control of elections is not seen as a politically realistic possibility
Long may she persist.
It's going to be amazing to watch debates between Democratic candidates, who are championing real issues, and Drumpf. What's he got? Build That Wall? Lock Her Up? Coal mines! Repeal Obamacare? Muslim ban? Infrastructure Week? Bring back Janine Pirro?
Thank you toto for your in-depth analysis. Good food for thought. And you are obviously the numbers guy, so can you answer a question? It was proposed in another post that splitting each state’s EC votes proportionately might be a way within the current system to make it more fair. So would that have changed the outcomes of the recent elections where the winning candidate didn’t win the popular vote? Given that the states’ EC votes are not directly proportionate to their population, I can see ways in which it wouldn’t have necessarily changed the results.
Agreed.
Agree for sure, I just worry about it swinging too far the other way, where those “flyover” peoples’ votes don’t matter at all. Lots of good arguments about why that won’t be the case with a national popular vote, but I’m not completely convinced. I still feel like, given limited resources (advertising dollars, campaign workers, etc.) a candidate will focus those resources where they will have the biggest bang, and pander to the concerns of the biggest states. If the 40,000,000 people in CA and the 2,000,000 in NM both want access to more Colorado River water, which group will be more valuable to agree with? That may or may not be a good example, but the point is there are issues which divide the states based on their history and culture. Vermont isn’t just 5% of New York; it has its own state identity and concerns.
Lol, you just pointed out that 6 states have 38% of the vote. It shows that's where people would focus. Saying Trump won X states is a non-sequitur in the discussion.
Richard Melon Scaife, I hope there is a hell just so he can be spit roasted for bankrolling those 30 years of smears and the NYT for aiding and abetting due to hate of the self made "Upstarts" for daring to succeed. (instead of being born into it like Maggie.)