The ever interesting and erudite Michael Barone posted about what the 2010 census is looking like right now in terms of shuffling the electoral votes by adding or subtracting congressional districts due to population changes. The long and the short of it is 14 EV will get moved around with those states going for Bush in 2004 getting +8 and those states going for Kerry getting -8.
But there is more to the story. If you further refine the data for states that went strongly for Bush (>5% margin), weakly for Bush (<=5% margin), weakly for Kerry (5% margin), you find that the switch is even more pronounced.
The states that went strongly for Bush are likely to gain 10 EV (Arizona +2, Florida +2, Georgia +1, Louisiana -1, Missouri -1, North Carolina+1, South Carolina +1, Texas +4 and Utah +1). Those that went weakly for Bush are likely to lose 2 EV (Iowa -1, Nevada +1, Ohio -2). The states that went weakly for Kerry are likely to lose 2 EV (Michigan -1, Minn. -1, Oregon +1, Penn. -1). Those that went strongly for Kerry are likely to lose 6 EV (California -1, Illinois -1, Mass. -1, New Jersey -1, New York -2).
This means that in the 2012 match up, the democrats will start 16 EV behind where they lost in 2004. That’s more EV than if they lost a democratic stalwart like New Jersey (currently 15EV, going to 14EV). I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to ponder on why states that trend republican are on net gaining population while states that trend democratic are losing population.
Addendum: (Bit)
Bitsblog readers, please welcome YetAnotherJohn. John agreed to start writing with us a short time ago. I’ve liked John’s style for a long while, now, and I’m sure you will, as well. I was going to make an announcement but decided it’d be more fun this way. Welcome YAJ!
Tags: Democrats, Elections, Republicans
July 25th, 2008 at 15:04
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com