FairVote Feed: All Reports

Following the Money: Campaign Donations and Spending in the 2012 Presidential Race

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:53:11 -0800

Our current method of electing the president is, to say it bluntly, unfair. Thanks to laws that allocate Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis, the great majority of Americans are ignored during the election for our country’s highest office. In 2012, all 253 of the campaign events with major party presidential and vice presidential candidates that took place after the Democratis National Convention were in just 12 states. From April 11 through Election Day on November 6, 99.6% of all advertising spending by the major party campaigns and their allies was in just 10 states.

But in the 2012 election, every state was invested at least in one way – they all had residents who donated to and financed the two major party candidates’ campaigns. Despite this generosity, when it came down to devising their campaign strategies, the candidates did not reciprocate. While the candidates lavished attention on ten lucky battleground states, the remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia, which received a combined 0.4% of campaign advertising, were left as net exporters, donated hundreds of times more money than they received.

The ten biggest net exporters of campaign donations were California, Illinois, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Georgia, Connecticut. Their residents were responsible for 57.2% of all donations to the two campaigns. In return, they received a total of 0.1% of campaign advertising spending during the peak campaign season – that is, $1.70 of advertising spending in their state for every $1,000 they donated.

Meanwhile, the 10 net importers of campaign spending – with Florida, Ohio, and Virginia leading the way – were showered with almost the entirety of national attention during the peak campaign season. Though they received 99.6% of all advertising over that stretch, they were responsible for only 21.6% of all donations to the major party campaigns. Florida alone received 21% of advertising despite being responsible for only 6.1% of donations.

This discrepancy is a clear consequence of the Electoral College winner-take-all system in place in 48 states and the District of Columbia. If the election was decided based on a national popular vote, states could finance in-state campaigning and have activism that stayed within their communities. Instead, states like Massachusetts and Vermont campaign in neighboring New Hampshire, Delaware and New Jersey campaign in Pennsylvania and Maryland and D.C. campaign in Virginia.

It should come as no surprise then that six of the top 10 net exporting states – Illinois, Maryland, Washington, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts – have passed the National Popular Vote (NPV) interstate compact into law. Under the NPV plan, once enough states sign on to represent a majority of the Electoral College (currently 270-538), they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of each individual state. Under this plaln, every vote, in ever corner of the nation, would be valued.

For a full listing of campaign donation vs. campaign spending, see the chart below (net importers of campaign money are bolded).

State	Donations to the Obama and Romney Campaigns	Percent of National Donation	Total Ad Money Spent, (4/11-11-6)	Percent of Ad Money
California	$137,804,736	14.70%	$320	0.00%
Illinois	$107,928,359	11.51%	$270	0.00%
New York	$76,743,682	8.19%	$55,600	0.01%
Texas	$64,044,620	6.83%	$2,570	0.00%
Florida	$56,863,167	6.06%	$175,776,780	21.00%
Massachusetts	$35,927,766	3.83%	$0	0.00%
Virginia	$32,428,002	3.46%	$127,000,000	15.17%
Pennsylvania	$27,661,702	2.95%	$31,000,000	3.70%
Maryland	$25,579,933	2.73%	$1,120	0.00%
New Jersey	$24,062,220	2.57%	$0	0.00%
Washington	$23,600,404	2.52%	$0	0.00%
Georgia	$21,906,923	2.34%	$6,020	0.00%
Colorado	$20,695,557	2.21%	$71,000,000	8.48%
Ohio	$20,654,423	2.20%	$148,000,000	17.68%
Michigan	$19,917,206	2.12%	$15,186,750	1.81%
North Carolina	$18,658,894	1.99%	$80,000,000	9.56%
Connecticut	$18,644,901	1.99%	$330	0.00%
Dist. of Columbia	$16,670,938	1.78%	$0	0.00%
Arizona	$14,631,204	1.56%	$40,350	0.00%
Tennessee	$11,967,542	1.28%	$1,440	0.00%
Missouri	$11,512,255	1.23%	$127,560	0.02%
Utah	$11,230,092	1.20%	$0	0.00%
Minnesota	$11,112,922	1.19%	$9,771,300	1.17%
Oregon	$10,463,528	1.12%	$460	0.00%
Wisconsin	$10,011,235	1.07%	$31,000,000	3.70%
Indiana	$8,210,564	0.88%	$300	0.00%
Louisiana	$7,510,687	0.80%	$3,990	0.00%
Oklahoma	$7,129,393	0.76%	$1,300	0.00%
Alabama	$6,736,196	0.72%	$80	0.00%
Nevada	$6,717,552	0.72%	$55,000,000	6.57%
South Carolina	$6,686,788	0.71%	$710	0.00%
Kentucky	$6,079,673	0.65%	$400	0.00%
New Mexico	$5,770,738	0.62%	$1,162,100	0.14%
Kansas	$4,796,947	0.51%	$0	0.00%
Iowa	$4,780,400	0.51%	$57,423,030	6.86%
New Hampshire	$4,389,577	0.47%	$34,000,000	4.06%
Idaho	$3,586,883	0.38%	$290	0.00%
Mississippi	$3,525,145	0.38%	$0	0.00%
Maine	$3,452,126	0.37%	$195,610	0.02%
Arkansas	$3,296,533	0.35%	$0	0.00%
Hawaii	$3,217,863	0.34%	$0	0.00%
Nebraska	$3,128,691	0.33%	$0	0.00%
Vermont	$2,732,572	0.29%	$0	0.00%
Montana	$2,295,005	0.24%	$0	0.00%
Rhode Island	$2,226,963	0.24%	$0	0.00%
Wyoming	$2,225,204	0.24%	$0	0.00%
Alaska	$2,153,869	0.23%	$0	0.00%
Delaware	$2,141,203	0.23%	$0	0.00%
West Virginia	$1,985,666	0.21%	$100	0.00%
South Dakota	$1,267,192	0.14%	$1,810	0.00%
North Dakota	$844,129	0.09%	$346,490	0.04%
Total	$937,609,770		$837,107,080

*Donations statistics from the FEC

*Advertising statistics from Washington Post

Top Two in Washington State

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:55:16 -0700

Legal Analysis of Alternative Single Winner Election Methods

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:39:57 -0700

No More Gerrymanders: Congressional Representation in the Seven At-Large States

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:26:05 -0800

All across the nation, lawmakers are engaged in a grand political game - decennial congressional redistricting - designed to benefit party elites rather than the people. Already, a number of states have passed controversial, opportunistic maps in which elected officials have chosen their voters before voters have chosen them. Redistricting, when combined with a winner-take-all rule in which 50% + 1 of the district vote guarantees 100% of representation, not only leaves substantial voting blocs unrepresented, but it reduces the vast majority of U.S. House elections to ceremonial, uncompetitive contests, in which voters are asked not to elect but to ratify the decisions party elites have already taken.

To address these problems, FairVote, as part of an ongoing series, has proposed state-specific "super-district" plans designed for elections with a proportional representation system, which we call "fair voting." Rather than use a winner-take-all rule, which accentuates the unfair effects of redistricting and encourages partisan games, FairVote has combined winner-take-all, gerrymandered districts to form multi-member super-districts. When using a fair voting system in these larger districts, every voter in every election will have a meaningful choice in a competitive contest and will be more likely to earn fair representation - a representative balance likely to include a winner from both major parties and occasionally a third party or independent candidate.

Winner-Take-All Plagues Seven At-Large States: However, in a handful of states, the partisan jockeying that is congressional redistricting does not occur. In each of these seven states - Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, and Vermont - just one member of Congress runs at-large across the entire state, meaning that controversies over redistricting occur only on the state legislative level. Rather than redrawing districts every ten years as the 43 other states must in order to maintain equal populations in each district, an at-large district's borders are fixed.

Though spared the controversies of congressional redistricting, winner-take-all rules still plague at-large states. By design, winner-take-all elections reduce millions of voters to irrelevancy, either because they live in a district that widely favors one party or because they vote for a candidate in a competitive constituency who falls short. Nowhere are the shortcomings of our voting system more acute than in at-large, winner-take-all races, where one individual is - rather astonishingly - responsible for representing the political and demographic diversity of an entire state. That this occurs in the U.S. House, the chamber of the national legislature that is by definition intended to reflect the complexities and vicissitudes of public opinion, is even more alarming. Americans forms of proportional representation, by contrast, would alleviate these problems.

When taken as a whole, FairVote's state-specific fair voting plans will achieve a U.S. House much more reflective of the nation's partisan and racial composition than what is possible under gerrymandered, winner-take-all contests - and, even more importantly, make every voter's participation meaningful in every election. Since these at-large states are locked in at one seat apiece, however, our construction of multi-seat super-districts is impossible under the U.S. House's current structure. For fair voting plans to be feasible in at-large states, one of two changes would need to occur: either a statutory change to federal law in order to expand the U.S. House beyond 435 seats (as was done regularly until 1910), which would give each of the at-large states at least two representatives, or a constitutional amendment allowing states to join with others to form interstate congressional districts.

Recent Winner-Take-All Elections in At-Large States: That said, it is informative to look at these states' recent congressional election results, in order to understand the degree to which winner-take-all has polluted the political waters. Racially, the at-large states are predominantly white (81.0%), with blacks (4.6%), Latinos (4.5%), and Native Americans (5.4%) all comprising roughly the same share of the combined population. Delaware is the only state with a significant black population (20.8%), while Alaska (14.4%) and South Dakota (8.5%) both contain an appreciable number of Native Americans.

With just one seat in each at-large state, racial minorities have had no chance to elect a preferred candidate who can't also draw significant support from white voters; unsurprisingly, none of the seven states have ever sent a racial minority candidate to Congress. The problem, of course, is not simply that these states lack multiple congressional districts in each of these states; rather, winner-take-all systems naturally struggle to reflect accurately the demographic composition of districts. Conversely, proportional systems lower the threshold of support necessary for like-minded voters in a minority group to help elect candidates of choice.

In terms of partisanship, all of the at-large states have partisanship index ratings that give a clear tilt toward one major party over the other. In other words, seven of seven seats are uphill battles for the other political party in House races – to the point that at least in presidential races, the contests essentially are over before they start.

Vermont and Delaware, with respective Democratic Party partisanship indexes of 64.9% and 58.9%, have backed the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992. Of the other five states - Wyoming (30.3% Democratic partisanship), Alaska (35.6%), North Dakota (42.1%), South Dakota (42.2%), and Montana (45.2%) - all except Montana have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968, and even then, the Big Sky Country gave only 37.6% to Bill Clinton in 1992, with independent Ross Perot earning 26.1% of the vote. Although the minority party has had some successes in these states' House races, all of them today are in line with their partisan leanings.

Partisanship Breakdown in the At-Large States

At-Large State	Population	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
AK	710,231	35.60%	0	0	0	0	1
MT	989,415	45.23%	0	0	0	1	0
WY	563,626	30.25%	0	0	0	0	1
SD	814,180	42.16%	0	0	0	1	0
ND	672,591	42.05%	0	0	0	1	0
DE	897,934	58.86%	1	0	0	0	0
VT	625,741	64.87%	1	0	0	0	0
Totals	5,273,718	-	2	0	0	3	2

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of vote totals in the 2008 presidential election. The seats are defined according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship rating between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. Our projections do not take into account incumbent advantages but reflect the underlying partisanship leanings of each district.

At the congressional level, some at-large states have shown more competitiveness than their partisanship rating would suggest - likely a holdover of the more fluid political realities of the last century. For instance, Republican Mike Castle represented Delaware for nine terms until leaving the House in 2010 to run - unsuccessfully - for Vice President Joseph Biden's former U.S. Senate seat. Similarly, North Dakota and South Dakota sent Democrats to Congress before both were defeated in 2010 by Republican challengers; in the former, nine-term Democratic incumbent Earl Pomeroy fell to Rick Berg, while in the latter, four-term Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin lost to Kristi Arnold Noem.

While these results show that both Democratic and Republican voters in these states have experienced electoral success, winner-take-all rules in one-seat states still mean that, in any given congressional district, only one major party's voters receive representation - and we likely will see fewer such surprises in the years ahead unless the partisan differences between the parties again become less clear. Such unfair results are to be expected in a voting system that makes nuanced representation virtually impossible.

Most at-large states have been dominated by one political party. Wyoming, for example, has not sent a Democrat to the U.S. House since Teno Roncalio resigned in 1978, while Alaska's last Democratic U.S. House representative, Nick Begich (father of current U.S. Senator Mark Begich), died while in office in 1972. In other words, it has been over 30 years since Democrats in either of these states have sent a candidate who shares their views to the U.S. House. Meanwhile, Vermont Republicans have not elected a U.S. House Member since 1990.

The U.S. House elections of 2008 and 2010 are illustrative of the lack of representation inherent in winner-take-all. In 2008, a combined 787,916 voters (counting Democrats in AK, MT, WY, and DE and Republicans in SD and ND) were left unrepresented - a number that would have been even larger had Vermont's Peter Welch received a Republican challenger. The same story occurred two years later in 2010, when - despite partisan turnover in three of the seven seats - a combined 700,304 voters (counting Democrats in AK, MT, WY, SD, and ND and Republicans in DE and VT) were unable to send a favored candidate to the U.S. House. In spite of our basic American principles grounded in representative democracy, winner-take-all ensures that the voices of many thousands of voters are left unheard and unrecognized in the halls of Congress.

Neglected Major Party Voters in the 2008 and 2010 U.S. House Elections

At-Large State	2008 Winning Party	Number of Losing Party 2008 Voters	Losing Party % 2008 Vote	2010 Winning Party	Number of Losing Party 2010 Voters	Losing Party % 2010 Vote
AK	R	141,754	45.1%	R	77,606	30.7%
MT	R	154,713	32.4%	R	121,954	33.8%
WY	R	103,677	42.8%	R	45,768	24.5%
SD	D	122,943	32.4%	R	146,589	45.9%
ND	D	118,430	37.9%	R	106,542	45.1%
DE	R	146,399	38.0%	D	125,442	41.0%
VT	D	Unopposed	N/A	D	76,403	32.1%
Totals	-	787,916	-	-	700,304	-

*Source for 2008 data and 2010 data is the New York Times.

Conclusion

Although at-large states avoid the partisan jockeying that goes along with congressional redistricting, they still struggle under the weight of oppressive winner-take-all rules. If the winner-take-all games continue, voters are likely to become even more disenchanted with our political system. In all of the at-large states, scores of voters are left unrepresented, sometimes for decades. They are forced to participate in congressional elections that lack competition and give them a representative in the "people's house" with views they strongly oppose. It is clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of everyone in a district, as winner-take-all assumes. Therefore, we need a new approach that will more accurately reflect the residents of each state. This will be harder to achieve for states with one House member, but by adopting fair voting plans with multi-seat super-districts, we can begin the march toward a more representative democracy.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: A History and Analysis of Relevant Supreme Court Cases

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:52:37 -0700

Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral College Votes

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:20:29 -0700

Federal Primary Runoff Elections and Voter Turnout Declines, 1994 - 2010

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:03:09 -0700

This report analyzes turnout data for the 146 primary runoff elections held between 1994 and 2010. Primary runoffs are elections between the top two vote-getters that are held after the initial primary should no candidate surpass a certain vote threshold (typically a majority) in the first round. However, these elections are plagued with declining turnout that negates the representative nature of the system. Noting the numerous factors that may impact turnout decline, this report attempts to quantify and measure these effects to promote the best possible election policy.

Redistricting Reform in the States: June 2010

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:37:35 -0800

Summary of Trends:

This report seeks to report on redistricting bills introduced in state legislatures this term. (Please alert us at rr@fairvote.org if you know of an omission.)

This review of redistricting reform in the states in 2009-2010 presents a mix of optimism and frustration for supporters of redistricting in the public interest. Of the many proposals addressed by the fifty state legislatures in 2009-2010, very few passed. Most of the proposals have died or are stuck in committee. Given the fact that the laws in many states prohibit redistricting more than once a decade, few states are likely to engage in redistricting with any new, less partisan procedures before 2021 at the earliest.

For reformers, the picture is not completely bleak. The fact that most state legislatures had members who felt compelled to introduce legislation, most of which was for actual reform of the process, could very well mean that the public’s tolerance for gerrymandering and politicians selecting their constituents is lessening. When state legislators do introduce legislation to undo reform, as in California, there was significant pushback. We may not see reform across the country for at least another decade, but the problem of politically-driven redistricting at the expense of the public interest is gaining awareness from average voters. This awareness may turn to action, making it all the more important to evaluate different approaches to make sure they achieve their objectives.

State Reform in the Spotlight in November 2010:

The two major redistricting issues to watch in November 2010 are competing ballot measures expected in California and Florida. In both states, voters are faced with two competing ballot measures: one which advances redistricting reform and one which protects the status quo and the interests of legislators. There is a lot of money and a lot of activism going into both sides and the outcomes of these twin elections, especially given the importance of California and Florida in national politics, will go far in shaping the tone of the debate for years to come. These two state races also will go far in gauging grassroots involvement in the issue and act as a barometer for the engagement of average voters in redistricting reform.

Download the Full 50-State Analysis above.

The Constitutional Right to Vote Blog: Rock the Blog!

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:16:26 -0700

The last Constitutional amendment (aside from the 27th amendment which started its ratification process in the late 1700s) was the 26th amendment. Ratified in 1971, it states that “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” While the language is intended to serve young people well, it still leaves open a loophole in Constitutional law- while young people cannot be discriminated against based on their age, they can be denied the chance to vote, or have their ability to vote abridged, for reasons that can also undercut voting rights for older citizens.

As demonstrated by the new Rock the Vote report, the 2011 Voting System Scorecard, we still have significant progress to make to better include 18-25 year olds in our elections. Perhaps more glaringly, the report indicates that less than 59% of young people (defined as 18-25 years old) are even registered to vote; this makes young people the segment of the US population least likely to be registered. Of those registered or eligible to be registered, many report difficulty understanding the processes.

The report works like this: it breaks down a series of areas related to voting, and gives each state a score in each of these areas. Topics include

registration (with scores for automatic registration, portable registration, online, same-day, and third party) for a possible area-total of 11 points,
voting (identification requirements, convenience, residency, absentee, overseas/military) with a possible area-total of 7 points,
and preparation (civic lessons, pre-registration) with a possible area-total of 3 points.

All together, the highest possible score is 21 points. Information on each sub-topic used to evaluate a state was collected from a variety of sources including FairVote, the Brennan Center, Demos, PEW, CIRCLE, the Fair Elections Legal Network, and several others.

Even the state with the highest score (Washington) received only a total of 14.2 or 68%. This score was based on a number of practices Rock the Vote endorses like online voter registration. States tied for the lowest score (South Carolina and Virginia) received an abysmal 3.8, or 18% of the total possible score. Some states such as California, Delaware and Maryland all received perfect scores in one area (“preparation”) but had room for improvement in other areas.

North Dakota was largely excluded from the report, since the state has no voter registration requirement. As a lack of voter registration requirements is often seen as a benefit to young people, Rock the Vote determined to discuss North Dakota as if full points had been given in the areas related to registration and pre-registration. If the state was therefore given full

points in these topics it would have a score of over 80%, more than 20% above any other state in the country, bumping North Dakota into the top-spot.
While this report shows many states making progress towards goal of more inclusive voting system, it is instructive about the case for reform that the highest score received was only 68%; a score that is barely passing.

Many states scored 0 points in the preparation section, which includes civic education and voter pre-registration. FairVote has taken a lead role in promoting good practices in this area. FairVote has been a national leader in promoting voter preregistration for young adults soon to be eligible to vote as a means to encourage voter registration in schools and at the DMV; we’ve taken a lead in securing it in recent years in Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. as detailed here. States where voter pre-registration bills are pending include New York and Massachusetts.

Rock the Vote reports that nationally less than 4% of 12th grade students were performing “above level” in civics classes; more than 60% are performing at a “basic” level. It is no wonder then that so many young people are registering to vote in the wrong way or at the wrong time. (For more information on FairVote’s civic lessons for students, please visit here). For related resources , see FairVote links on civic education ,an interactive map on registration,blogs related to the topic and pending legislation on voting reform.

Youth voting’s abysmal turn out numbers involve more than issues with pre-registration and civic learning, of course. Many problems arise when young mobile persons want to vote, but find themselves unable to obtain a ballot. As highlighted by the Rock the Vote report, this is often because some young people become most interested in a campaign close to an election, at time at which many states’ registration deadlines have long since passed. In fact, Rock the Vote found that 15% of people who tried to use their online voter registration form in 2008 did so after the deadline for the upcoming election, and 10,000 tried to register to vote on Election Day! Without same day voter registration, and easy-to-use absentee voting procedures, 18-25 year olds are often left out of the pool of eligible voters

Yet, in light of the difficulties involved with youth mobilization, Rock the Vote contends that 30 states have tried to pass or have passed legislation in the past year which would actually make it more difficult for young people to register and to vote.

Such legislation include requiring a state issued ID in order to vote, proposals to eliminate same day voter registration, and plans as radical as New Hampshire’s failed proposal to limit voting among college students to those whose parents lived in that community prior to the student attending college to avoid students “voting their feelings”.

Overall, what reports like Rock the Vote’s highlight are the needs for more comprehensive programs to educate voters and potential voters as to what options are available when registering and learning about civics in their area. However, such efforts will most effective if paired with efforts to reform current systems to become more inclusive for all citizens, easier for voters to understand, and streamlined. It’s very telling even the highest performing states received scores that no student would ever want to find on a report card.

More broadly, while the 26th amendment was a giant step forward for young people, the Rock the Vote report underscores the fact that it didn’t establish an absolute constitutional right to vote for young adults; rather, it gave them the all-too-tenuous level of voting rights provided to older citizens. Without a more affirmative right to vote in the Constitution it’s too easy for states to make decisions that undercut our voting rights – for people of any age, but often with the greatest impact on young adults.

Not Your Parents' Presidential Elections: The Decline of Swing States, 1960-2008

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:43:27 -0700

Summary: American presidential elections have undergone a dramatic change in recent decades.The number of swing states (which are states defined as projected to be won by less than 10% in elections in which the major parties candidates split the national popular vote) has dropped sharply, especially since 1988 and especially among our nation's largest and smallest states.

For example, only one of the 13 smallest states and only four of the 27 smallest states were swing states in 2008, much fewer than in the 1980s. We don't see this imbalance changing soon -- indeed, in 2008 only three of the smallest 13 states were within even a 15% partisanship disparity.

Furthermore, at the other end of the population spectrum in our 11 largest population states,, fewer than half were swing states in 2004 and 2008 -- down from 10 out of 11 of these states in the 1960 and the 1976 presidential elections and 8 of these states in 1988.

Looking forward, none of the 2008 non-swing states are expected to become swing states in 2012, yet some 2008 swing states may well move to non-swing state status. This decline would continue a 50-year trend summarized here.

Swing States (within 9%) by # 2008 Electoral Votes, 1960-2008*
Year	2008 Electoral Vote 15 or more	2008 Electoral Votes 9 to 14	2008 Electoral Votes 5 to 8	2008 Electoral Votes 4 or less	Total
2008	5 of 11 states	6 of 13 states	3 of 14 states	1 of 13 states	15
2004	4 of 11	6 of 13	5 of 14	1 of 13	16
1988	8 of 11	4 of 13	8 of 14	6 of 13	26
1976	10 of 11	6 of 13	8 of 14	5 of 13	29
1960	10 of 11	7 of 13	8 of 14	6 of 13	31

*Washington, D.C. is included in all years except 1960

Partisanship Disparity (P), All States, 1960-2008*

Year	P=<9%	9%<P<20%	P>=20%	Notes
2008	15	19	17	13R & 4D landslide states
2004	16	20	15	10R & 5D landslide states
1988	27	22	2	1R & 1D landslide states
1976	29	14	8	5R & 3D landslide states
1960	31	13	6	2R & 4D landslide states

*Washington, D.C. is included in all years except 1960

Of 11 largest population states with 15 or more electors in 2008

2008: 5 states within 9% partisan division (FL,NC, NJ, OH, PA)

2004: 4 states within 9% partisan division (FL, MI, OH, PA)

1988: 8 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 10 states within 9% partisan division (all but GA)

1960: 10 states within a 9% partisan division (all but GA)

Of 13 mid-sized states with 9 to 14 electors in 2008

2008: 6 states within 9% partisan division (VA,IN,MO,MN,WI,CO)

2004: 6 states within 9% partisan division

1988: 5 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 6 states within 9% partisan division

1960: 7 states within 9% partisan division

Of 14 smaller mid-sized states with 5 to 8 electors in 2008

2008: 3 states within 9% partisan division (NM,IA,NV)

2004: 5 states within 9% partisan division

1988: 8 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 8 states within 9% partisan division

1960: 8 states within 9% partisan division

Of 13 smallest population states (including DC except in 1960) with 4 or fewer electors in 2008

2008: 1 state within 9% partisan division (NH /Only 2 more within 15%)

2004: 1 state within 9% partisan division (NH / Only 3 more within 15%)

1988: 6 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 5 states within a 9% partisan division

1960: 6 states within a 9% partisan division