9.3 Myths about Small States

The U.S. Constitution gives each state a number of electoral votes equal to the state’s number of U.S. Representatives (which are apportioned on the basis of each state’s population) plus the state’s number of U.S. Senators (two).

Defenders of the current system of electing the President repeatedly assert—with a straight face—that the current system gives small states increased clout in presidential elections.

Trent England, Executive Director of Save Our States, has written:

“The seven smallest states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia each have three electoral votes. A national popular vote would render all low-population states almost permanently irrelevant in presidential political strategy.”[212] [Emphasis added]

Professor Robert Hardaway of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law has stated:

“If we had National Popular Vote, you take a state like Alaska, which has a very low population. If it was a national popular vote, no presidential candidate would be interested in going up there, because the population is so low. But, … if they have three electoral votes, that’s the compromise that brought this nation together, that’s a lot of votes, that’s a lot of electoral votes compared to the population, so you’ll see presidential candidates visiting some of those outlying areas.”[213] [Emphasis added]

Senator Mitch McConnell (R–Kentucky) has asked:

“If the only vote total that counted was just running up the score, query, when would be the next time if you had a state with one congressmen or two congressmen and you had a tiny population, when would be the next time you would see or hear from any candidate for president?”[214]

Economics Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University has said:

“Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote … presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware.”[215] [Emphasis added]

Tara Ross, a lobbyist against the National Popular Vote Compact who works closely with Save Our States,[216], [217], [218]has testified at state legislative hearings in Delaware, Nevada, and elsewhere:

“Minority political interests, particularly the small states, are protected [by the current system].”

“Ultimately, the Electoral College ensures that the political parties must reach out to all the states.”

“NPV will lessen the need of presidential candidates to obtain the support of voters in rural areas and in small states.”[219] [Emphasis added]

Gary Gregg II of the University of Louisville and editor of Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College,[220] a book defending the current system, said that a national popular vote for President:

“would mean ignoring every rural and small-state voter in our country.”[221]

None of these statements is true.

The eight states with three electoral votes

The major-party nominees for President and Vice President conducted a total of 1,164 general-election campaign events in the four elections between 2008 and 2020.

In table 9.1, the first four columns show the number of general-election campaign events in those four elections that took place in the eight states with three electoral votes.[222], [223] The last four columns of the table show the Republican percentage of the two-party vote in each election. The table is sorted according to the Republican nominee’s percentage in 2020.

Table 9.1 Presidential campaigns in the eight states with three electoral votes 2008–2020

2020 events	2016 events	2012 events	2008 events	State	2020 R-%	2016 R-%	2012 R-%	2008 R-%
				Wyoming	72%	76%	71%	67%
				North Dakota	67%	70%	60%	54%
				South Dakota	63%	66%	59%	54%
				Montana	58%	61%	57%	51%
				Alaska	55%	58%	57%	61%
				Delaware	40%	44%	41%	37%
				Vermont	32%	35%	32%	31%
			1	D.C.	6%	4%	7%	7%
0	0	0	1	Total

The table shows that there was only one general-election campaign event conducted in the eight smallest states between 2008 and 2020. It was in the District of Columbia in 2008.

The table also shows why both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates almost totally ignored the eight smallest states.

All eight of the smallest states are one-party states in presidential elections. The outcome in each was a foregone conclusion long before Election Day. The two-party vote in these states was not within the narrow range that gives a candidate any chance to change the outcome.

Comparison of the eight smallest states with the battleground state of Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s population (5,698,230) is about the same as the combined population of the eight smallest states (5,912,842).[224]

Because of the two senatorial electoral votes that every state receives, the eight smallest states have a whopping 24 electoral votes—compared to only 10 for Wisconsin.

According to the defenders of the current system, the disproportionately large number of electoral votes possessed by the small states gives them increased clout.

However, Wisconsin received a total of 58 general-election campaign events between 2008 and 2020, compared to only one visit for the eight smallest states combined.

Wisconsin received 6% of the nation’s 1,164 campaign events during the four elections—even though the state has 2% of the nation’s population. That is, it got three times more attention than warranted by its population.

In contrast, the eight smallest states received only 0.1% of the 1,164 campaign events during this period—even though these states have 2% of the nation’s population. That is, the smallest states received one-twentieth of the attention that their population warrants.

Figure 9.1 shows that Wisconsin received considerably more attention than the eight smallest states, even though the eight states have considerably more electoral votes.

Mike Flanagan—flantoons@btinternet.com

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is the reason why the 5.6 million people in Wisconsin received so much attention, and why the equivalent number of people in the eight smallest states received virtually no attention.

A thought experiment involving the eight smallest states

Now suppose the 5.9 million voters of the eight smallest states were not politically isolated inside the boundaries of their respective states but that they lived in a single state.

Given that this imaginary combined state has essentially the same population as Wisconsin, it would have only 10 electoral votes—considerably fewer than the 24 actually possessed by the eight separate states today.

The two-party vote in this imaginary combined state was closely divided in all four presidential elections between 2008 and 2020:

• 51%–49% for Biden in 2020
• 52%–48% for Trump in 2016
• 52%–48% for Obama in 2012
• 54%–46% for Obama in 2008

That is, this imaginary combined state would be equivalent to Wisconsin in terms of

• population
• number of electoral votes
• competitiveness.

Thus, the voters of this imaginary combined state would be as important in presidential politics as Wisconsin. They would therefore receive essentially the same amount of attention from presidential candidates as Wisconsin currently does.

Presidential candidates would become familiar with the issues of concern to the voters of this imaginary combined state, fashion their platforms to appeal to these voters, communicate their platforms to these voters through advertising, and do all the other things that candidates do to solicit votes (e.g., open offices, run a ground game, encourage grassroots participation).

The same thing would happen under a national popular vote for President. Every voter in this imaginary combined state would suddenly matter to both the Democratic and Republican nominee. A vote in this imaginary combined state would become as valuable as a vote anywhere else in the country.

In short, a national popular vote for President would eliminate the artificial Balkanization of small-state voters and make them politically relevant in presidential elections.

The 13 states with three or four electoral votes

A similar pattern emerges if we expand the definition of a small state to include the 13 states with three or four electoral votes.

Table 9.2 shows the number of general-election campaign events and the Republican percentage of the two-party vote between 2008 and 2020 in the 13 smallest states.

Table 9.2 Presidential campaigns in the 13 states with three or four electoral votes 2008–2020

2020 events	2016 events	2012 events	2008 events	State	2020 R-%	2016 R-%	2012 R-%	2008 R-%	EV
				Wyoming	72%	76%	71%	67%	3
				North Dakota	67%	70%	60%	54%	3
				Idaho	66%	68%	66%	63%	4
				South Dakota	63%	66%	59%	54%	3
				Montana	58%	61%	57%	51%	3
				Alaska	55%	58%	57%	61%	3
4	21	13	12	New Hampshire	46%	49.8%	47%	45%	4
2	3		2	Maine	45%	48%	42%	41%	4
				Delaware	40%	44%	41%	37%	3
				Rhode Island	39%	42%	36%	36%	4
				Hawaii	35%	33%	28%	27%	4
				Vermont	32%	35%	32%	31%	3
			1	D.C.	6%	4%	7%	7%	3
6	24	13	15	Total					44

New Hampshire stands out in this table in terms of the amount of attention that it received in these general-election campaigns. It received almost all (50 of the 58) of the campaign events received by this entire group of states.

New Hampshire’s 50 general-election campaign events were 4% of the nationwide total of 1,164 events—far in excess of the number warranted by the state’s population.

The reason why presidential candidates campaigned vigorously in New Hampshire—while ignoring equally populous states such as Idaho, Rhode Island, and Hawaii and all the other small states—is that its statewide popular vote was closely divided in New Hampshire, whereas the other small states were non-competitive one-party states.[225]

Note that Maine is the only other small state in table 9.2 that received any significant amount of attention among the 13 smallest states.

The reason is that Maine awards two of its electoral votes by congressional district. Its 2^nd district (the northern part of the state) was closely divided in three of the four elections (2008, 2016, and 2020).

Presidential candidates campaigned in Maine because they perceived (correctly) that one electoral vote was up for grabs in the northern part of the state. In fact, Donald Trump carried the 2^nd district in 2016 and 2020. Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential nominee carried the state as a whole in all four elections because of the heavily Democratic 1^st district (centered in Portland). In other words, the state of Maine was not politically competitive, but the 2^nd district was.

Table 9.2 also shows that the six states at the top of the table are heavily Republican and did not receive any campaign events in any of the four elections. The Republican presidential nominees (wisely) decided that they could take these states for granted and still win all of their electoral votes.[226] The Democratic nominees (equally wisely) wrote off these solidly red states, because they had no realistic possibility of winning any electoral votes there.

Similarly, five of the states at the bottom of table 9.2 are so heavily Democratic that the Democratic nominees knew that they were in the bag. Meanwhile, the Republican nominees knew that those states were hopelessly out of reach.[227]

A thought experiment involving the 12 smallest non-battleground states

Now let’s return to the claim that small states have increased clout because of the two senatorial electoral votes that every state receives.

The 12 non-battleground small states in table 9.2 (that is, the 13 smallest states except New Hampshire) have a combined population of 11,241,524.

Coincidentally, Ohio has almost the same number of people (11,568,495).

Because of the two senatorial electoral votes that every state receives above the number warranted by its population, the 12 non-battleground small states have 40 electoral votes, whereas Ohio has only about half as many.[228]

Despite having only about half as many electoral votes as the 12 non-battleground small states, Ohio received a total of 196 general-election campaign events in the four elections (out of a total of 1,164 events nationwide). Meanwhile, the 12 non-battleground small states received just eight events out of 1,164. Moreover, seven of those eight events were in Maine in years when the state's northern congressional district was competitive.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is the reason why the 11.5 million people in Ohio received so much attention, and why the 11.2 million people in the 12 non-battleground small states received so little attention. Under the current system, political clout does not arise from the number of electoral votes that a state possesses, but from whether the state is closely divided.

If the 11.2 million people in the 12 noncompetitive small states had lived in a single state, that imaginary combined state would have been a closely divided battleground state. Its two-party vote would have been:

• 51%–49% for Biden in 2020
• 51%–49% for Trump in 2016
• 53%–47% for Obama in 2012
• 55%–45% for Obama in 2008.

This imaginary combined state would have essentially the same population as Ohio. However, it would have only 20 electoral votes[229]—not the 40 electoral votes actually possessed by the 12 separate small states.

In other words, the voters of this imaginary combined state would have almost the same population, number of electoral votes, and political complexion as Ohio.

Thus, it would become as important in presidential politics as Ohio’s voters, and presidential campaigns would necessarily give the imaginary combined state more or less as much attention as Ohio.

As former Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R–Colorado) wrote in 2012:

“Some argue that the present system protects the interests of small states, especially those that hold conservative values. However, today 12 of the 13 smallest states are ignored after party conventions and are derisively referred to as ‘flyover’ country.”

“Under the [National Popular Vote] plan, an evangelical voter in rural Wyoming would count the same as the union steward in Cleveland.”[230] [Emphasis added]

The 25 smallest states (three to seven electoral votes)

Let’s now generously expand the definition of a small state to include the 25 states with three to seven electoral votes.

Table 9.3 shows the number of general-election campaign events and the Republican percentage of the two-party vote between 2008 and 2020 in the 25 smallest states. These states have a combined population of 46,819,264.

Table 9.3 Presidential campaigns in the 25 states with three to seven electoral votes 2008–2020

2020 events	2016 events	2012 events	2008 events	State	2020 R-%	2016 R-%	2012 R-%	2008 R-%	EV
				Wyoming	72%	76%	71%	67%	3
			1	West Virginia	70%	72%	64%	57%	5
				North Dakota	67%	70%	60%	54%	3
				Oklahoma	67%	69%	67%	66%	7
				Idaho	66%	68%	66%	63%	4
				Arkansas	64%	64%	62%	60%	6
				South Dakota	63%	66%	59%	54%	3
	1			Utah	61%	62%	75%	65%	6
1	2			Nebraska	60%	64%	61%	58%	5
				Montana	58%	61%	57%	51%	3
	1			Mississippi	58%	59%	56%	57%	6
				Kansas	57%	61%	61%	58%	6
				Alaska	55%	58%	57%	61%	3
5	21	27	7	Iowa	54%	55%	47%	45%	6
11	17	13	12	Nevada	49%	49%	47%	44%	6
4	21	13	12	New Hampshire	46%	49.8%	47%	45%	4
2	3		2	Maine	45%	48%	42%	41%	4
	3		8	New Mexico	44%	45%	45%	42%	5
				Oregon	42%	44%	44%	42%	7
				Delaware	40%	44%	41%	37%	3
	1			Connecticut	40%	43%	41%	39%	7
				Rhode Island	39%	42%	36%	36%	4
				Hawaii	35%	33%	28%	27%	4
				Vermont	32%	35%	32%	31%	3
			1	D.C.	6%	4%	7%	7%	3
23	70	53	43	Total					189

As can be seen in the table, only three of the 25 states (New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa) received any significant amount of attention over the course of the four elections. They accounted for almost all (163 out of 189) of the campaign events received by this entire group of states. Fifteen of these smallest states received no attention at all during any of the four elections.

The reason why so much attention was lavished on these particular three states becomes apparent by looking at the level of support in each state for each candidate.

New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa received almost all of the attention, because they were closely divided.

In addition, Maine and Nebraska received a modest number of events, because one congressional district in each state was competitive. New Mexico was competitive in 2008 and received a considerable amount of attention at the time. However, it has not been a battleground state in presidential elections since then.

In a 1979 Senate speech, U.S. Senator Henry Bellmon (R–Oklahoma) described how his views on the Electoral College had changed as a result of serving as national campaign director for Richard Nixon and a member of the American Bar Association’s commission studying electoral reform:

“While the consideration of the electoral college began—and I am a little embarrassed to admit this—I was convinced, as are many residents of smaller States, that the present system is a considerable advantage to less-populous States such as Oklahoma. … As the deliberations of the American Bar Association Commission proceeded and as more facts became known, I came to the realization that the present electoral system does not give an advantage to the voters from the less-populous States. Rather, it works to the disadvantage of small State voters who are largely ignored in the general election for President.”[231] [Emphasis added]

Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:

“Many persons have the impression that the Electoral College benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a vice-presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.

“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.

“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.”[232] [Emphasis added]

The political clout of the small states is not based on the Electoral College.

In discussing the political clout of small states, it is well to remember that the Electoral College is not the bulwark of influence for the small states in the U.S. Constitution.

The small states’ source of political clout is the equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate (and, to a lesser extent, the equal representation of the states in the constitutional amendment process and, to an even lesser extent, the equal representation of the states in contingent elections for President in the U.S. House).

The 13 smallest states (with 3% of the nation’s population) have 25% of the votes in the U.S. Senate—an enormously significant source of political clout in fashioning federal legislation (as well as in the confirmation and treaty-making processes).

Footnotes

One of the most frequently repeated statements about presidential elections is the inaccurate claim that the small states give the Republican Party a systemic advantage in the Electoral College.

There were 13 states with three or four electoral votes after the 1990, 2000, and 2010 census.

We examine these states in terms of three yardsticks:

• number of states won by each party,
• number of electoral votes won by each party, and
• number of popular votes won by each party.

Number of small states won by each party between 1992 and 2020

The smallest states have been almost equally divided politically in the eight presidential elections between 1992 and 2020 (with a slight edge to the Democrats).

The Republican presidential nominee almost always carried six small states between 1992 and 2020—Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Montana is the only one of these states that did not vote Republican in all eight elections. It went for Bill Clinton in 1992 when independent candidate Ross Perot divided the state’s popular vote.

The Democratic presidential nominee carried seven small states between 1992 and 2020—Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

New Hampshire is the only one of these states that did not vote Democratic in all eight elections. It went for George H.W. Bush in 2000 when third-party candidate Ralph Nader divided the vote.

Table 9.4 shows which party carried each of the 13 smallest states in the eight presidential elections between 1992 and 2020.[233]

Table 9.4 Presidential voting by the 13 smallest states 1992–2020

State	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Delaware	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
D.C.	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Hawaii	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Maine	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Rhode Island	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Vermont	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
New Hampshire	D	D	R	D	D	D	D	D
Montana	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
Alaska	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
Idaho	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
North Dakota	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
South Dakota	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
Wyoming	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
Democratic states	8	7	6	7	7	7	7	7
Republican states	5	6	7	6	6	6	6	6
Democratic EV	27	24	20	24	24	24	23	23
Republican EV	17	20	24	20	20	20	21	21

Overall, the Democratic presidential nominee won the smallest states 56 times, while the Republican won them 48 times in the eight presidential elections between 1992 and 2020.

The Democratic presidential nominee won the 13 smallest states by a 7–6 margin in six of the eight elections.

The Democratic nominee won these states by an 8–5 margin in 1992, and the Republican nominee won these states by a 7–6 margin in 2000.

Number of electoral votes won by each party between 1992 and 2020

Table 9.4 also shows that the Democrats won more electoral votes than the Republicans from the smallest states in seven of the eight presidential elections between 1992 and 2020.

Overall, the Democratic presidential nominee won 189 electoral votes from the 13 smallest states, while the Republican won 163 electoral votes.

Number of popular votes won by each party between 2000 and 2020

The popular vote in the 13 smallest states has been almost equally divided in the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.[234]

Overall, the Democratic presidential nominee won 16,951,920 popular votes (51%) from the 13 smallest states in the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, while the Republican won 16,298,161 popular votes (49%), as shown in table 9.5.

Table 9.5 The popular vote in the 13 smallest states was divided 51%–49% in favor of the Democratic presidential nominee in the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Year	Republican popular votes	Democratic popular votes
2000	2,361,723	2,171,442
2004	2,801,822	2,612,915
2008	2,544,113	3,137,100
2012	2,603,226	2,942,513
2016	2,754,608	2,673,800
2020	3,232,669	3,414,150
Total	16,298,161	16,951,920
Two-party percentage	49.0%	51.0%

In terms of percentages, the two-party popular vote in the 13 smallest states between 2000 and 2020:

• favored Biden 51.4% to 48.6% in 2020
• favored Trump 50.7% to 49.3% in 2016
• favored Obama 53.1% to 46.9% in 2012
• favored Obama 55.2% to 44.8% in 2008
• favored George W. Bush 51.7% to 48.3% in 2004
• favored George W. Bush 52.1% to 47.9% in 2000.

Fourteen states have three or four electoral votes in 2024 and 2028.

West Virginia lost one congressional district as a result of the 2020 census and will therefore have only four electoral votes in 2024 and 2028.

Montana gained one congressional district and will have four electoral votes.

Both states are safely Republican in presidential elections and therefore received no general-election campaign events in the four presidential elections between 2008 and 2020.

New Hampshire continues to be the only one of the 14 smallest states that is likely to be competitive in 2024.

Figure 9.2 shows that the 14 states with three or four electoral votes in the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections were equally divided in the four presidential elections between 2004 and 2020.

Mike Flanagan—flantoons@btinternet.com

Possible origin of the myth that the small states are Republican in presidential elections

The origin of this myth may be the fact that the 12 smallest states divided 9–3 in favor of the Republicans in the relatively close presidential elections of 1960, 1968, and 1976 as well as the fact that there were Republican landslides in the Electoral College in four other elections during this period (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988).

The 13 smallest states cast 3% of the nation’s popular vote while possessing 6% of the electoral votes. That is, the 13 smallest states have 26 electoral votes above what their population would warrant.

Even if these 26 electoral votes unanimously favored the Republican Party (and this is manifestly not the case), 26 electoral votes out of 538 would not create a controlling advantage.

Biden won in 2020 by a 306–232 margin in the Electoral College. Trump won in 2016 with an identical margin. Obama won in 2012 by a 332–206 margin, and he won in 2008 by a 365–173 margin.

Footnotes

In a 2011 article entitled “National Popular Vote Plan Would Hurt Most States,” Morton C. Blackwell, a long-standing member of the Republican National Committee from Virginia, wrote:

“Thirty-one states would lose power in presidential elections under [the National Popular Vote] plan.”

“If NPV had been in effect in 2008, Delaware would have lost 44% of its power. Rhode Island would have lost 51.49% of its power. Wyoming’s power would have dropped by 65.48%. The pattern is the same for all the smaller-population states.”[235]

Blackwell based this statement upon an arithmetic calculation that compares each state’s percentage share of the nation’s voters in 2008 to the state’s percentage share of the entire country’s 538 electoral votes.

Table 9.6 shows Blackwell’s calculation.

• Column 2 is the state’s number of electoral votes.
• Column 3 is the state’s percentage share of the entire country’s 538 electoral votes. For example, Wyoming’s three electoral votes represent 0.56% of the entire country’s 538 electoral votes.
• Column 4 is the number of popular votes cast in the state in the 2008 presidential election.
• Column 5 is the state’s percentage share of the entire country’s 132,454,039 popular votes for President in 2008.[236] For example, Wyoming’s 256,035 popular votes for President constituted 0.19% of the nationwide total.
• Column 6 is the difference between column 5 and column 3. For example, the difference between 0.19% and 0.56% is –0.37% for Wyoming. That is, Wyoming’s percentage share of the nation’s voters in 2008 is less than its percentage share of the entire country’s 538 electoral votes.
• Column 7 is the ratio of column 6 to column 3. For example, the –0.37% difference for Wyoming in column 6 is –65.48% of 0.56%. Blackwell then interprets this negative number as demonstrating that Wyoming would lose 65.48% of its power in presidential elections.

Table 9.6 Morton Blackwell’s calculations

State	EV	% of 538	Popular votes	% of popular vote	% difference in power	Change due to NPV
Alabama	9	1.67%	2,105,622	1.59%	-0.08%	-4.97%
Alaska	3	0.56%	327,341	0.25%	-0.31%	-55.68%
Arizona	10	1.86%	2,320,851	1.75%	-0.11%	-5.73%
Arkansas	6	1.12%	1,095,958	0.83%	-0.29%	-25.81%
California	55	10.22%	13,743,177	10.38%	0.15%	1.49%
Colorado	9	1.67%	2,422,236	1.83%	0.16%	9.32%
Connecticut	7	1.30%	1,644,845	1.24%	-0.06%	-4.56%
Delaware	3	0.56%	413,562	0.31%	-0.25%	-44.01%
D.C.	3	0.56%	266,871	0.20%	-0.36%	-64.02%
Florida	27	5.02%	8,453,743	6.38%	1.36%	27.18%
Georgia	15	2.79%	3,940,705	2.98%	0.19%	6.71%
Hawaii	4	0.74%	456,064	0.34%	-0.40%	-53.69%
Idaho	4	0.74%	667,506	0.50%	-0.24%	-31.90%
Illinois	21	3.90%	5,578,195	4.21%	0.31%	7.89%
Indiana	11	2.04%	2,805,986	2.12%	0.07%	3.61%
Iowa	7	1.30%	1,543,662	1.17%	-0.13%	-10.35%
Kansas	6	1.12%	1,264,208	0.95%	-0.17%	-14.78%
Kentucky	8	1.49%	1,858,578	1.40%	-0.08%	-5.64%
Louisiana	9	1.67%	1,979,852	1.49%	-0.18%	-10.49%
Maine	4	0.74%	744,456	0.56%	-0.18%	-24.05%
Maryland	10	1.86%	2,651,428	2.00%	0.14%	7.62%
Massachusetts	12	2.23%	3,102,995	2.34%	0.11%	5.03%
Michigan	17	3.16%	5,039,080	3.80%	0.64%	20.40%
Minnesota	10	1.86%	2,921,147	2.21%	0.35%	18.57%
Mississippi	6	1.12%	1,289,939	0.97%	-0.15%	-13.05%
Missouri	11	2.04%	2,992,023	2.26%	0.21%	10.48%
Montana	3	0.56%	497,599	0.38%	-0.18%	-32.91%
Nebraska	5	0.93%	811,923	0.61%	-0.32%	-34.04%
Nevada	5	0.93%	970,019	0.73%	-0.20%	-21.25%
New Hampshire	4	0.74%	719,643	0.54%	-0.20%	-26.58%
New Jersey	15	2.79%	3,910,220	2.95%	0.16%	5.88%
New Mexico	5	0.93%	833,365	0.63%	-0.30%	-32.35%
New York	31	5.76%	7,721,718	5.83%	0.07%	1.17%
North Carolina	15	2.79%	4,354,571	3.29%	0.50%	17.92%
North Dakota	3	0.56%	321,133	0.24%	-0.32%	-56.71%
Ohio	20	3.72%	5,773,387	4.36%	0.64%	17.25%
Oklahoma	7	1.30%	1,474,694	1.11%	-0.19%	-14.36%
Oregon	7	1.30%	1,845,251	1.39%	0.09%	7.16%
Pennsylvania	21	3.90%	5,996,229	4.53%	0.62%	15.98%
Rhode Island	4	0.74%	475,428	0.36%	-0.38%	-51.49%
South Carolina	8	1.49%	1,927,153	1.45%	-0.04%	-2.35%
South Dakota	3	0.56%	387,449	0.29%	-0.27%	-47.77%
Tennessee	11	2.04%	2,618,238	1.98%	-0.06%	-3.10%
Texas	34	6.32%	8,078,524	6.10%	-0.22%	-3.49%
Utah	5	0.93%	971,185	0.73%	-0.20%	-21.16%
Vermont	3	0.56%	326,822	0.25%	-0.31%	-55.94%
Virginia	13	2.42%	3,753,059	2.83%	0.42%	17.26%
Washington	11	2.04%	3,071,587	2.32%	0.28%	13.68%
West Virginia	5	0.93%	731,691	0.55%	-0.38%	-40.60%
Wisconsin	10	1.86%	2,997,086	2.26%	0.40%	21.65%
Wyoming	3	0.56%	256,035	0.19%	-0.37%	-65.48%
Total	538	100.00%	132,454,039	100.00%

Blackwell’s arithmetic is correct. However, this arithmetic bears no relation to what happens in real-world presidential campaigns.

Presidential candidates concentrate virtually all of their general-election campaigning in closely divided states.

Because almost all small states are one-party states in presidential races, they are politically irrelevant in the general election campaign for President.

Political clout comes from being a battleground state—not from the ratio of electoral votes to the number of voters (as discussed in detail in section 9.1).

An examination of table 9.2 shows that 11 of the 13 smallest states (those with three or four electoral votes) received no attention at all in the 2008 campaign. The only significant amount of campaigning was in New Hampshire—the sole closely divided state among the 13 smallest states.

Note that the tendency of small-population states to be one-party states in presidential election extends to the 31 smallest states, as shown in table 1.15 and figure 1.12. In fact, 22 of the 31 smallest states were totally ignored under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

Yet, Blackwell would have us believe that the current system confers enhanced political clout on these 31 smallest states.

A closer examination of Blackwell’s calculation shows that it simply demonstrates a geographical and historical oddity concerning the peculiar distribution of state sizes in the United States, namely that about two-thirds of states happen to have a below-average number of electoral votes.

The average number of electoral votes per state is 10.55 (that is, 538 divided by 51).

The fact is that two-thirds of the states have a below-average number of electoral votes—that is, 33 states have 10 or fewer electoral votes.

Because each state receives two electoral votes (above and beyond what would be warranted by its population), the percentage share of the nation’s 538 electoral votes for each of the 33 below-average-sized states is larger than the state’s percentage share of the nation’s population.[237]

In short, Blackwell’s calculation is just a reflection of the particular geographical distribution of the U.S. population among the states.

Footnotes

Because New Hampshire was a closely divided state in the four presidential elections between 2008 and 2020, it received 50 of the 58 general-election events that took place in the 13 smallest states (as shown in table 9.2).

Thus, New Hampshire received 4.2% of the nation’s general-election campaign events even though it has only 0.42% of the nation’s population.

Because Maine awards electoral votes by congressional district, and its 2^nd district was closely divided in three of the four elections between 2008 and 2020, it received some attention (two or three events) in those elections.

Meanwhile, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Idaho were all ignored not because they were small, but because presidential candidates had nothing to gain by paying any attention to their voters under the winner-take-all system.

In short, the table shows that the determinant of whether a state receives attention is whether it is a closely divided state at the state level or, in the case of Maine, whether its 2^nd congressional district happened to be competitive in a particular year.

In a nationwide vote for President, every voter in every state would be equally important in every presidential election. Under a national popular vote, a voter in a small state would become as important as any other voter in the United States. Moreover, in many cases, small states offer presidential candidates the attraction of considerably lower per-impression media costs (section 9.13.7).

The fact that serious candidates solicit every voter who matters was further demonstrated in 2008 by Nebraska’s 2^nd congressional district (the Omaha area). The Obama campaign operated three separate campaign offices staffed by 16 people there. The Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media reported that $887,433 worth of ads were run in the Omaha media market in 2008.[238] The reason for this activity in the Omaha area was that Nebraska awards electoral votes by congressional district. The campaigns paid attention to the 2^nd district, because it was closely divided and because one electoral vote was at stake. The outcome in 2008 was that Barack Obama carried the 2^nd district by 3,378 votes and thus won one electoral vote from Nebraska.

The fact that serious candidates solicit every vote that matters was also demonstrated by the fact that Mitt Romney opened a campaign office in Omaha in July 2012 in order to compete in Nebraska’s 2^nd district[239] and that the Obama campaign was also active in the Omaha area at the time.[240]

One Nebraska State Senator whose district lies partially in the 2^nd congressional district reported a heavy concentration of lawn signs, mailers, precinct walking, telephone calls to voters, and other campaign activity related to the 2008 presidential race in the portion of his state senate district that was inside the 2^nd congressional district, but no such activity in the remainder of his state senate district. Indeed, neither the Obama nor the McCain campaigns paid the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s heavily Republican 1^st district or heavily Republican 3^rd district, because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2^nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the issues relevant to Nebraska’s remaining two districts did not.

When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.

Footnotes

Prominent officials from small states have long recognized the fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

Lawsuit by Delaware and other small states challenging the winner-take-all rule

In 1966, the state of Delaware and a group of 11 predominantly small states (including North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, and Pennsylvania) argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the state-by-state winner-take-all rule:

“debases the national voting rights and political status of Plaintiff’s citizens and those of other small states.”[241] [Emphasis added]

This lawsuit was filed after the flurry of Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s that established the one-person-one-vote principle in connection with congressional and state legislative districts.

Defendant New York’s political importance in presidential elections in the 1960s cannot be overemphasized. New York was not only a closely divided state, but it was the nation’s biggest state at the time. It possessed the largest number of electoral votes (45). None of the prominent battleground states in recent elections (e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida) has been the biggest or even second-biggest state.

Delaware Attorney General David P. Buckson(R) led the effort. The plaintiff’s brief in State of Delaware v. State of New York argued:

“The state unit-vote system [winner-take-all] debases the national voting rights and political status of Plaintiff’s citizens and those of other small states by discriminating against them in favor of citizens of the larger states. A citizen of a small state is in a position to influence fewer electoral votes than a citizen of a larger state, and therefore his popular vote is less sought after by major candidates. He receives less attention in campaign efforts and in consideration of his interests.”[242] [Emphasis added]

Delaware’s brief also stated:

“This is an original action by the State of Delaware as parens patriae for its citizens, against the State of New York, all other states, and the District of Columbia under authority of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S. Code sec. 1251. The suit challenges the constitutionality of the respective state statutes employing the ‘general ticket’ or ‘state unit-vote’ system, by which the total number of presidential electoral votes of a state is arbitrarily misappropriated for the candidate receiving a bare plurality of the total number of citizens’ votes cast within the state.

“The Complaint alleges that, although the states, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Par. 2 of the Constitution, have some discretion as to the manner of appointment of presidential electors, they are nevertheless bound by constitutional limitations of due process and equal protections of the laws and by the intention of the Constitution that all states’ electors would have equal weight. Further, general use of the state unit system by the states is a collective unconstitutional abridgment of all citizens’ reserved political rights to associate meaningfully across state lines in national elections.” [Emphasis added]

The plaintiff’s brief argued that the votes of the citizens of Delaware and the other plaintiff states are:

“diluted, debased, and misappropriated through the state unit system.”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case (presumably because the choice of manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision under McPherson v. Blacker).

Ironically, the defendant New York is no longer a battleground state. Today, New York suffers the very same disadvantage as Delaware, because it is now politically noncompetitive in presidential elections. Today, a voter in New York is equal to a voter in Delaware—both are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

The Compact has been enacted by six small states.

As of July 2024, the National Popular Vote Compact has been enacted into law by six small states (Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia).

Public opinion in small states supports national popular vote.

Public support for a national popular vote for President is substantially the same in state-level polls of small states, medium-sized states, and big states, as discussed in detail in section 9.22.

Footnotes

Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established and protected in the U.S. Constitution.

The composition of the U.S. Senate cannot be changed by the passage of any state law or any interstate compact.

In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:

“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

That is, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment that, in addition to the usual requirements, is approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote Compact is concerned with the method of selecting members of the Electoral College. The power to change the method of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors is explicitly granted to each state by the U.S. Constitution:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”[243]

Changing the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes would have no effect on the equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

Footnotes