Montana would be on the list if it weren't for the fact that Ross Perot garnered 26% of the vote in the 1992 election, resulting in a 2.5% margin for Clinton over Bush.
Montana is a lot more blue than it'd seem—Obama only lost it 10,000 votes in 2008. They also have a Democratic senator, Jon Tester, but he just lost his seat yesterday.
Montana also has a lower population than the island of Manhattan, so each vote is weightier as a percentage point than in massive states like CA or NY. Meaning larger margins of victory are more likely with fewer total votes cast (i.e. Obama may have only lost by 11K votes in 2008 but in MT that's almost 3% of the vote, in a state like CA that's less than 0.1%).
Although that sounds persuasive I'm not sure that it's how it works, at least once the population is higher than 100 or so. Perhaps some statistician can correct me, but I can't see any reason why there should be any correlation between smaller populations and more overwhelming votes. Icelandic general elections, for example, aren't particularly marked by wider margins than Dutch ones, even though the Hague alone has 50% more people than Iceland does.
Montana has 4 electoral votes. 574,000 votes were cast in Montana in the 2024 presidential election. Divide 574,000 by 4. This means that each electoral vote in Montana represented 143,500 votes (ignore the winner-take-all system).
Texas has 40 electoral votes. Approximately 11,320,000 votes were cast in Texas in the 2024 presidential election. Divide 11,320,000 by 40. This means that each electoral vote in Texas represented about 283,000 votes.
The more votes each electoral vote, congressional representatives, or district represents, the less influence and power each individual vote has. So in this example, a vote in Montana almost twice as powerful as one in Texas.
There’s more factors that determine a vote’s worth, but that’s the basic idea. Some say that this helps small states have equal representation, but really, it means they’re overrepresented. This is one reason the Electoral College is so undemocratic.
So, basically the states that have been red the longest just trace back to the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act, while states that have been blue the longest are not necessarily linked to any major explanation?
I'm not from US so the conjunctures of red swaps at Nixon and Reagan are not clear to me.
Minnesota stands alone at the top of the "blue the longest" quiz because, in 1984, 49 states voted for Reagan. Minnesota was the only state in the entire union to vote for Mondale. That is why even super blue California doesn't share the record.
I think it's worth pointing out both candidates in 1984 carried their home states (MN just happened to be the ONLY one Mondale won, plus DC), and that between 1952 and 1988 the only time California was NOT red was in 1964 for LBJ.
Ironically, the states that hated the Civil Rights Act the most can't even get on this list because they specifically voted for a one-off super-segregationist third party in 1968.
Southern states also voted for Carter in 1976 (mainly because he's from Georgia) and partially for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 (because he's from Arkansas).
For real? More than half of the country requests or requires photo ID to vote at polls and in the states that don't it's not like they don't care. It does not mean you can vote multiple times unless you want a massive fine or jail time. People barely turn out in decent numbers to vote once, you think they care about trying to do it twice? Spend five minutes on Google next time dude
but it’s not. besides, the original statement was a criticism of America’s election system (which is NOTORIOUSLY lacking in the democracy department compared to much of the rest of the democratic world), not some problem with Voter ID laws. Voter ID laws don’t even actually negatively affect that many people.
One person, one vote. As long as the individual is a citizen with the right to participate, the latitude and longitude of where one votes for president shouldn't amplify or diminish its weight.
The title should be clearer on which election we're talking about. Looks like you're talking about the Presidential election, but it could have been Senatorial or Gubernotarial.
it's not rigged, dude. it's just deeply flawed because we're still arbitrarily abiding to institutions established by people hundreds of years ago as though they're some kind of godlike wisdom despite decades of evidence to the contrary
That makes Montana more red than California (+17 Harris) and New York (+13 Harris) are blue.
Montana has 4 electoral votes. 574,000 votes were cast in Montana in the 2024 presidential election. Divide 574,000 by 4. This means that each electoral vote in Montana represented 143,500 votes (ignore the winner-take-all system).
Texas has 40 electoral votes. Approximately 11,320,000 votes were cast in Texas in the 2024 presidential election. Divide 11,320,000 by 40. This means that each electoral vote in Texas represented about 283,000 votes.
The more votes each electoral vote, congressional representatives, or district represents, the less influence and power each individual vote has. So in this example, a vote in Montana almost twice as powerful as one in Texas.
There’s more factors that determine a vote’s worth, but that’s the basic idea. Some say that this helps small states have equal representation, but really, it means they’re overrepresented. This is one reason the Electoral College is so undemocratic.
Hope that helps 🙂
I'm not from US so the conjunctures of red swaps at Nixon and Reagan are not clear to me.
go USA