2024 Presidential Election Analysis

State-by-State Analysis of Equal Voice Voting

Summary:

The 2024 U.S. Presidential election results point to a number of conclusions that can be drawn that go far beyond which candidate won the presidency. The following sections address each major concern:

  • Comparing EVV with Current Election Results – What the election results would have looked like if Equal Voice Voting had been used across the country. It shows the election results on a state-by-state basis.
  • Vote Suppression – Ballots cast often do not gain representation (suppression) in the electoral college. The section shows how many were suppressed in total and how many for each of the major political parties.
  • NPVIC Probable Scenario – A “what-if” scenario shows what would have happened if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact had been used.

Comparing EVV with Current Election Results

The table below shows the results from each of the fifty states plus Washington, D.C. The blue and red highlights indicate which candidate won each state:

Blue = Harris

Red = Trump

The second column shows the current results from each state using the winner-takes-all approach, awarding all of their respective electoral votes to the candidate winning the plurality of popular votes in their state. It should be noted that Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district voting method, which allows for both major candidates to win votes within the same state. These two states still actually use a winner-takes-all approach for two votes state-wide and again for each congressional district (two for Maine and three for Nebraska).

The third and fourth columns show the proportional allocation of electoral votes IF Equal Voice Voting had been used in each jurisdiction instead. It should be noted that if EVV had been used, the campaigning and voter turnout would probably have been different, thereby further altering the results from what was experienced.

The immediate difference between the two approaches is two-fold:

First The difference between the electoral college vote totals for each candidate is widely different. Currently, Trump won 312 electoral votes to Harris’s 226. That is an 86 electoral vote difference (almost a 7 to 1 difference!).

Using EVV, Trump would have won 275 electoral votes to Harris’s 263, a twelve electoral vote difference.

Second The difference between the popular and electoral vote results would have been much smaller using EVV than what was currently experienced.

Chart of 2024 Presidential Election results if EVV was used.

The current results shows the difference between the two is 14.51%. If EVV had been used, the difference would have been 0.76%. Once again, by using EVV, the results show that a popular vote result can be realized in the electoral college, without the need for a U.S. Constitutional amendment.

Another way to view the results is to compare the electoral college maps that so often depict how different states have voted. We are used to seeing the blue and red state divisions of how the nation voted. Using EVV, however, would show the blending of the two colors to reveal a more accurate depicting of the nation’s voting sentiment.

2024 Map of Electoral votes versus EVV Votes.

Vote Suppression

Vote suppression is simply the disenfranchisement of ballots cast that do not gain representation in the electoral college. Using the current approach, 69,241,011 ballots cast did not make it to the electoral college – they were suppressed.

However, in full transparency, ballots cast for a minor political party candidate or for a write-in candidate, never gain electoral college representation. The question then becomes, “How many ballots cast for either Harris or Trump were suppressed?”

Harris suppressed votes = 38,708,904

Trump suppressed votes = 22,921,104

If EVV had been used, none of the ballots cast for either of these two candidates would have been suppressed! All of them would have gained electoral college representation!

NPVIC Probable Scenario

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been touted as a viable answer to ensure that the candidate winning the plurality of votes will win the presidency. This is a true statement, but it should be recognized that there is more to the story than simply winning an election. Other results emerge as well.

The following scenario is a probable one, had NPVIC been in place for the 2024 election.

NPVIC will come into play once enough states agree to participate in the compact such that their combined electoral votes reaches the 270 electoral vote majority threshold. Those electoral votes would be cast for whichever candidate gains the most (a plurality) of the nation’s popular votes. This would ensure that only presidential candidates who win the popular vote of the nation wins the White House.

Current NPVIC Status:

Currently, there are seventeen states and Washington, D.C. agreeing to the compact. That brings their combined electoral vote total to 209 electoral votes.

States Considering NPVIC:

Five states are considering NPVIC and, if they agree, their electoral vote contribution would be an additional 40 electoral votes – still shy of the 270-majority vote threshold by 21 electoral votes.

Possible Additions:

Since NPVIC appeals mainly to states that lean towards the Democrats (blue), other states that show balanced representation between the two major parties can be added.

Virginia (13 electoral votes) could possibly be added. Virginia sometimes vacillates between being a red or blue state.

North Carolina (16 electoral votes) could possibly be added. North Carolina in recent history has experienced narrow Republican winning margins.

The entire compact would then be 278 electoral votes and would provide a solid win for the popular vote choice.

The 2024 election, realized by the NPVIC electoral vote allocation, would have given Trump 537 electoral votes to Harris’s one! The only Democrat electoral vote would have come from a single congressional district in Nebraska. Since Nebraska uses a unique congressional district voting process (only Maine does the same), that single vote would be the only representation of Harris’s national appeal.

Consider the messaging that would follow, by the candidate and by the winning political party, if Trump could claim he captured almost the entire electoral college election results. A claim for a mandate would be greater than his current claim, though he won the popular vote by only a 1.47% margin.

This hypothetical scenario clearly shows how volatile the NPVIC is. EVV provides a much better approach that respects the U.S. Constitution, the republic, and makes all votes matter!

NPVIC Failings:

  1. NPVIC cannot fully address the voting concern that the current approach cannot accurately reflect the national voting sentiment.
  2. NPVIC invites false messaging from the winning political party & candidate.
  3. NPVIC would exacerbate the lack of voter confidence.
  4. NPVIC would probably lower voter turnout in subsequent elections.