Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mvymvy

(309 posts)
35. Only 7 Swing States Expected in 2016
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:41 PM
Jul 2015

My reply showed that with the current system, the winner of the national popular vote is not guaranteed to win.

State winner-take-all statutes have allowed candidates to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in four of our 57 presidential elections—1 in 14 times. If one considers only non-landslide presidential elections, the four “wrong winner” elections represent 1 in 7 of the non-landslide elections (14%). A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry despite Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. A shift of 214,393 votes in 2012 would have elected Romney despite Obama’s nationwide lead of almost 5,000,000 votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

A candidate could win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

In the 2012 general election, 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only 10 competitive states 2/3rds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA). 38 small, medium, and large states were politically irrelevant. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

The National Popular Vote bill would go into effect when states with 270 electoral votes enact it.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So, with the current system, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012
None of the 10 most rural states matter
24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it.

see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

People forget that Perot's support had dwindled to a trickle by election time. Chemisse Jul 2015 #1
his support didn't "seem" to come from both sides, ericson00 Jul 2015 #3
Clinton did not win a majority in 1996 either. former9thward Jul 2015 #2
How many elections in the last 125 years have a different popular vote & electoral vote winner? ericson00 Jul 2015 #5
Intersting you use "125 years" former9thward Jul 2015 #7
did you read the post? ericson00 Jul 2015 #8
Current System is Precarious mvymvy Jul 2015 #20
pork-barrel spending will never allow a national popular vote ericson00 Jul 2015 #21
Only 7 Swing States Expected in 2016 mvymvy Jul 2015 #35
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #11
GOP talking points are disruptive ericson00 Jul 2015 #12
Still sore about it, huh? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #23
Its not different than "I am not a scientist" ericson00 Jul 2015 #25
Republicans can shut their f'ing mouths ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #27
its amazing how on progressive blogs the myth is almost as popular ericson00 Jul 2015 #28
You hate election facts. former9thward Jul 2015 #32
also he did win a majority, a "relative majority", a synonym for plurality ericson00 Jul 2015 #37
Nice try but i don't buy that 1992 was a realigning election for a minute. craigmatic Jul 2015 #4
you sound like a Republican ericson00 Jul 2015 #6
1994? 1939 Jul 2015 #9
I'm talking about Presidential elections here ericson00 Jul 2015 #10
1800, 1828, 1932, 1980, 2008 those were realigning elections. If Clinton changed the electorate so craigmatic Jul 2015 #13
you can't win 'em all. And Gore was a media unsavvy gaffe machine. ericson00 Jul 2015 #14
The reason the republicans stopped winning so many electoral votes is because craigmatic Jul 2015 #15
Your definition of realignment leaves out 1968 ericson00 Jul 2015 #16
Most people don't consider 1968 realigning because policy didn't really change neither did craigmatic Jul 2015 #17
"most people?" ericson00 Jul 2015 #18
We'll just never agree on Clinton's importance. craigmatic Jul 2015 #22
Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #24
The electoral votes of CA, DE, MD, IL, ME, NH, VT, PA, MI, NJ, CT, ericson00 Jul 2015 #26
SCOTUS justices are the bare minimum of what we expect of a democratic president. craigmatic Jul 2015 #33
and so ought to be electoral votes. The guy who fought ericson00 Jul 2015 #34
EVs are important but so are coalitions and more importantly policy. craigmatic Jul 2015 #36
Also, if you, like me, are offended by the smear against the facts the Clintons, ericson00 Jul 2015 #19
If anyone has a WSJ account, ericson00 Jul 2015 #29
Rachel covered this tonight Gothmog Jul 2015 #30
I know! She was epic ericson00 Jul 2015 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Taking on the Zombie Pero...»Reply #35