The electoral importance of each state in the 2012 election

[eric82oslo]

This formula can be used for other elections as well, and also to predict future elections based on current trends or on predictions based on polls asking for a future vote.

This is the formula I've used: 100/margin from popular vote*number of EVs

This formula takes two factors into account; the importance of a state based on its strenght as in population or number of EVs and also the importance of a state based on how far it was in percentage from the actual popular vote. Of course, here I could have used the tipping point state as well, but I opted out of it, since that is something that varies heavily from election to election and is, to a substantial degree, influences by randomness and noise. The popular vote is much more stable than the tipping point, since it take all 50 + D.C. states into account.

So here's the list of the most important states in the 2012 election based on significance for the electoral outcome:

1. Virginia: 130 000
2. Ohio: 2045.5
3. Pennsylvania: 1307.2
4. Florida: 973.2
5. Colorado: 596
6. Wisconsin: 324.7
7. Iowa: 307.7
8. California: 285.6
9. Michigan: 283.7
10. Minnesota: 261.1
11. North Carolina: 254.2
12. New Hampshire: 232.6
13. Nevada: 212.8
14. Texas: 193.5
15. Illinois: 153.7
16. Georgia: 137
17. New York: 119.2
18. Washington: 109
19. New Jersey: 100.4
20. Arizona: 85.1
21. Oregon: 84.8
22. New Mexico: 79.5
23. Indiana: 78.2
24. Missouri: 75.5
25. South Carolina: 62.8
26. Massachusetts: 57.1
27. Connecticut: 51.9
28. Tennessee: 45.3
29. Maryland: 45
30. Mississippi: 39.1
31. Louisiana: 38
32. Maine: 35
33. Alabama: 34.5
34. Kentucky: 30.1
35. Kansas: 23.5
36. Arkansas: 21.8
37. Delaware: 20.3
38. Nebraska: 19.5
39. Oklahoma: 18.7
40. Montana: 17.1
41. Rhode Island: 16.9
42. Alaska: 16.8
43. West Virginia: 16.3
44. South Dakota: 13.7
45. North Dakota: 12.8
46. Utah: 11.6
47. Idaho: 11.2
48. Hawaii: 10.3
49. Vermont: 9.5
50. Wyoming: 6.7
51. Washington D.C.: 3.8


As we can see, using this formula, which is much broader than just figuring out which states will be or was the closest ones to the actual popular vote or to the tipping point, big, populous states get a lot more prominence. Both Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are regarded as more important than the smaller state of Colorado (even as it has an impressive 9 EVs). Even more interestingly though, the state of California makes a huge jump and actually places itself in a very strong 8th place of importance. Imagine if the Republican party could regain some strenght with latinos and other minorities and actually make California more of a competitive state again. California would have closed the deal for Republicans just like Texas would do the same for Democrats. Republican presidential candidates would have won every single election where they would held on to California. Texas figures at a 14th place on the list, while Illinois - which trended Republican in 2012 - comes just after Texas on 15th place. The big state of Georgia is ranked 16th, the even bigger New York at 17th, while Arizona doesn't make a stronger bid than 20th place for now. However Arizona will probably be quite a bit higher than that on a similar list of importance after the 2016 election though. Anyone disagree on that?

What are the lessons learned from a list like this? Should campaigns pay more attention, efforts, strategy, rhetoric, money and advertisement on big states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, and much less so on smaller states like New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa?

[Non Swing Voter]

Seems about right.  Though Virginia will drop off as the number 1 state in a few cycles as it transitions to a strongly democratic state.

[barfbag]

Seems about right.  Though Virginia will drop off as the number 1 state in a few cycles as it transitions to a strongly democratic state.

I don't see VA becoming strong anything. It's matched the popular vote the last two times and likely will be the same way in 2016. Obama was an incredible candidate for Virginia so the trend has been skewed.

[Non Swing Voter]

Seems about right.  Though Virginia will drop off as the number 1 state in a few cycles as it transitions to a strongly democratic state.

I don't see VA becoming strong anything. It's matched the popular vote the last two times and likely will be the same way in 2016. Obama was an incredible candidate for Virginia so the trend has been skewed.

You've made your position on this clear.  The fact remains that in the last 16 years, Virginia has consistently trended democrat.  You seem to respond to posts where no facts are presented on this.  But I've posted in many other threads with specific links to articles about how population growth in northern Virginia and population loss in southwestern Virginia is making the state more democratic.  You seem to ignore those threads.

The fact is that since 2010, 90% of the population growth has been in areas where Obama won.  More than 50% of Virginia's population growth was in Northern Virginia alone.  All in counties that Obama won heavily.  Most in counties that even Kerry won.

Since 2010, nearly 100% of Virginia's population loss (though there was not a net loss statewide) has been in areas that Romney won.  The vast majority in southwestern Virginia, where Romney won by 70-30 margins. 

The population trends have actually sped up and Northern Virginia is expected to go from about 28-32% of the state population (depending upon how the borders are defined) to about 36-40% of the population within the next 20 years.

Please explain to us how the math works if 40% of the state is voting heavily Democratic?  Remember, the other 60% is not entirely Republican.  The Richmond area skews Democrat.  So do several college towns.  Virginia Beach is evenly split.  Additionally, there are a string of counties that are a majority black in southern Virginia. 

[JRP1994]

Seems about right.  Though Virginia will drop off as the number 1 state in a few cycles as it transitions to a strongly democratic state.

I don't see VA becoming strong anything. It's matched the popular vote the last two times and likely will be the same way in 2016. Obama was an incredible candidate for Virginia so the trend has been skewed.

Virginia in the past 20 years:

1992: R+8
1996: R+6
2000: R+5
2004: R+3
2008: >R+1
2012: 0

Extending the trend (assuming the same trend-line):

2016: D+1
2020: D+3
2024: D+5
2028: D+6
2032: D+8

[opebo]

This formula can be used for other elections as well, and also to predict future elections based on current trends or on predictions based on polls asking for a future vote.

This is the formula I've used: 100/margin from popular vote*number of EVs

This formula takes two factors into account; the importance of a state based on its strenght as in population or number of EVs and also the importance of a state based on how far it was in percentage from the actual popular vote. Of course, here I could have used the tipping point state as well, but I opted out of it, since that is something that varies heavily from election to election and is, to a substantial degree, influences by randomness and noise. The popular vote is much more stable than the tipping point, since it take all 50 + D.C. states into account.

So here's the list of the most important states in the 2012 election based on significance for the electoral outcome:

1. Virginia: 130 000
2. Ohio: 2045.5

VA is 130,000??

[eric82oslo]

This formula can be used for other elections as well, and also to predict future elections based on current trends or on predictions based on polls asking for a future vote.

This is the formula I've used: 100/margin from popular vote*number of EVs

This formula takes two factors into account; the importance of a state based on its strenght as in population or number of EVs and also the importance of a state based on how far it was in percentage from the actual popular vote. Of course, here I could have used the tipping point state as well, but I opted out of it, since that is something that varies heavily from election to election and is, to a substantial degree, influences by randomness and noise. The popular vote is much more stable than the tipping point, since it take all 50 + D.C. states into account.

So here's the list of the most important states in the 2012 election based on significance for the electoral outcome:

1. Virginia: 130 000
2. Ohio: 2045.5

VA is 130,000??

Virginia was only 0.01% more Democratic than the popular vote.

[pbrower2a]

This formula can be used for other elections as well, and also to predict future elections based on current trends or on predictions based on polls asking for a future vote.

This is the formula I've used: 100/margin from popular vote*number of EVs

This formula takes two factors into account; the importance of a state based on its strenght as in population or number of EVs and also the importance of a state based on how far it was in percentage from the actual popular vote. Of course, here I could have used the tipping point state as well, but I opted out of it, since that is something that varies heavily from election to election and is, to a substantial degree, influences by randomness and noise. The popular vote is much more stable than the tipping point, since it take all 50 + D.C. states into account.

So here's the list of the most important states in the 2012 election based on significance for the electoral outcome:




As we can see, using this formula, which is much broader than just figuring out which states will be or was the closest ones to the actual popular vote or to the tipping point, big, populous states get a lot more prominence. Both Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are regarded as more important than the smaller state of Colorado (even as it has an impressive 9 EVs). Even more interestingly though, the state of California makes a huge jump and actually places itself in a very strong 8th place of importance. Imagine if the Republican party could regain some strenght with latinos and other minorities and actually make California more of a competitive state again. California would have closed the deal for Republicans just like Texas would do the same for Democrats. Republican presidential candidates would have won every single election where they would held on to California. Texas figures at a 14th place on the list, while Illinois - which trended Republican in 2012 - comes just after Texas on 15th place. The big state of Georgia is ranked 16th, the even bigger New York at 17th, while Arizona doesn't make a stronger bid than 20th place for now. However Arizona will probably be quite a bit higher than that on a similar list of importance after the 2016 election though. Anyone disagree on that?

What are the lessons learned from a list like this? Should campaigns pay more attention, efforts, strategy, rhetoric, money and advertisement on big states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, and much less so on smaller states like New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa?

Nice algorithm.  Republicans could solve just about every problem that they have in winning a majority if they could make California and New York competitive by forcing Democrats to run more expensive nationwide campaigns. Of course that is like saying that Minnesota would be a great place for outside swimming in January if it weren't so d@mned cold in the winter.
 
Spending money on California or New York makes about as much sense as someone like me (who doesn't have any fascination with the sort of speed that entices state troopers to pull me over) buying a Ferrari. The best that Republicans could do is to try to allocate those states' electoral votes by Congressional district and pick off about 35 electoral votes.  

Reality still trumps algorithms like yours. Maybe Al Gore would have been wiser to go after the electoral votes of Nevada or New Hampshire than those of Florida in 2000.

[pbrower2a]

Yellow -- state went by 12% or less
Blue -- 2012 margin 12% or more Republican
Red --  2012 margin 12% or more Democratic

Virginia -- 10% saturation  (1. Virginia: 130 000)


596 - 2046 ...  20% saturation
153 - 325   ...  40% saturation
75 - 137     ...  50% saturation
30 - 63       ...  60% saturation
16 -  24      ...  70% saturation
under 14    ...  90% saturation

Districts in Maine vote close to the state as a whole. The Second Congressional District of Nebraska, basically Greater Omaha, votes very differently from the state as a whole in Presidential elections, and I am guessing on NE-02. Western Iowa gets its TV from Omaha, anyway.

[pbrower2a]

This formula can be used for other elections as well, and also to predict future elections based on current trends or on predictions based on polls asking for a future vote.

This is the formula I've used: 100/margin from popular vote*number of EVs

This formula takes two factors into account; the importance of a state based on its strenght as in population or number of EVs and also the importance of a state based on how far it was in percentage from the actual popular vote. Of course, here I could have used the tipping point state as well, but I opted out of it, since that is something that varies heavily from election to election and is, to a substantial degree, influences by randomness and noise. The popular vote is much more stable than the tipping point, since it take all 50 + D.C. states into account.

So here's the list of the most important states in the 2012 election based on significance for the electoral outcome:

(top 10)

1. Virginia: 130 000
2. Ohio: 2045.5
3. Pennsylvania: 1307.2
4. Florida: 973.2
5. Colorado: 596
6. Wisconsin: 324.7
7. Iowa: 307.7
8. California: 285.6
9. Michigan: 283.7
10. Minnesota: 261.1

Bottom ten:

42. Alaska: 16.8
43. West Virginia: 16.3
44. South Dakota: 13.7
45. North Dakota: 12.8
46. Utah: 11.6
47. Idaho: 11.2
48. Hawaii: 10.3
49. Vermont: 9.5
50. Wyoming: 6.7
51. Washington D.C.: 3.8

Let's see how the formula works for the closest states of 2000:

1. Florida                 4717
2. New Mexico         1087
3. Wisconsin           3666.7
4. Oregon             87500
5. New Hampshire    223.5
6. Minnesota            505
7. Missouri                285
8. Ohio                     521
9. Nevada                  98.2
 

 

[stevekamp]

Are you really saying Republicans would have won every 1992-2012 election had they simply held on to the 54 or 55 EVs from California? In every one of these elections, the Dem EV numbers were 370, 379, 365, and 332 (excluding 200-2004, when Bush won EC without CA).  Subtract 55, and Clinton-Obama-Obama are still above 270.

If the Rs can flip CA, they may be able to flip OR (7) and WA (12) = 74 from the current Left Coast Firewall for the Democrats.