I have not done enough research to make a conjecture as to why this data is as it is. But what I note is that, in some sense, general elections appear to be more predictable than they were a long time ago; fewer states are competitive.
What I did: I looked at Presidential elections from 1976 to 2012 and recorded: difference in popular vote and the number of electoral votes that "were in play" meaning: I totaled the electoral votes from states where the difference was less than 5 points, and those when the difference was less than 10 points. I did NOT record Congressional Districts.
More below the fold:
There is something that struck me: while some elections weren't even close and others very close, there has been a fundamental change in election results since the 1976 election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I listed: popular vote difference between the winner and loser (in 2000, George W. Bush won over Al Gore though Gore got more votes), the electoral vote total of the states in which the difference was 5 percent or less (52.5-47.5 or closer) , and the electoral vote total of the stats in which the difference was 10 percent or less (55-45 or closer).
year |
margin |
EV l. t. 5 |
EV l. t. 10 |
1976 |
2.1 |
299 |
404 |
1980 |
9.8 |
165 |
278 |
1984 |
18.2 |
27 |
117 |
1988 |
7.7 |
195 |
265 |
1992 |
5.5 |
202 |
333 |
1996 |
8.5 |
117 |
260 |
2000 |
-0.5 |
139 |
224 |
2004 |
2.5 |
115 |
264 |
2008 |
7.2 |
87 |
159 |
2012 |
3.9 |
75 |
192 |
Notice what is happening: the number of "competitive" electoral votes appears to be dropping, with the exception of the landslide of 1984. It appears to me that we have really evolved into red states and blue states, though I acknowledge that what makes a state "red" or "blue" can largely depend on if its population is more urban or rural. Example: there are some ruby red areas of Illinois, but the massive population of Chicago overwhelms that. On the other hand, in 2008 and 2012, Austin, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas all went blue. But these votes were overwhelmed by the bright red countryside (and Fort Worth).
But more to my point: in previous elections, your vote was more likely to have an impact no matter where you lived; that appeared to change in the last 2 elections.
If you want your mind blown, look at the 1976 General Election map:
And look at the close states:
How many of these would be considered "battleground" states today?
So I wonder if this means that people are more polarized, or that the differences between the candidates are more stark now-a-days.
But it is different.
Note: I did some playing around, and if I counted all "less than 10 point difference states" as toss ups, I get this for 2016, right off of the bat:
Though I see this as more realistic:
(user generated maps from 270 to win)
Disclaimer: I voted in every Presidential election in which I was eligible. My votes were very predictable:
1980: Carter
1984: Mondale
1988: Dukakis
1992: Clinton
1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama
2012: Obama