After more than a conversation or two IRL, I hear a cry of “wait till the midterms,” or “someone is going to kill this guy and we will get back to normal.” There is a math conversation behind these desired outcomes that is missing. Call this Political Science -1 regarding trends and how they will (notice I didn’t say “might”) affect future presidential elections. I write so that not only can anyone understand it, but everyone can easily explain it to others. For some of you, it will create a hope that you haven’t felt in a while. For others, it will take it away.
Presidential outcomes are determined by the Electoral College (EC). No exceptions, not ever. These are the “real” votes, and they are driven by the outcomes in individual states. The number of voters each state sends is based on the outcomes of the US Census. Mathematical ratios determines how many votes each state gets; not any legislative body or any previous president. Your state’s population divided the total for the country equals your share. This is THE starting point, and it represents one of the most important foundations for understanding how the USA elects its president. Most people think it’s all about winning votes and winning states. Let me clarify that overly simple explanation. It is not correct and doesn’t tell how things work.
A Quick U.S. History Primer on the Electoral College
- Origins: The Electoral College was created in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention. Founders like James Madison wanted a system to balance power between large and small states, avoiding a direct popular vote in which big states might dominate. Each state’s electors equal its House seats (based on population) plus two senators (for equality). Brilliant. Geography counts, not just the people who live there.
- How It Works: To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 of 538 electoral votes. States award votes mostly “winner-take-all” (except Maine and Nebraska). This setup has led to five elections in which the popular vote winner lost (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016), highlighting how geography matters more than the total number of votes. Read that again. The Founding fathers knew better than to make a democracy. They made a republic. They wanted a representative government, not a free for all in which “he who gets the most votes wins.”
- Historical Shifts: Over time, population changes via censuses (every 10 years, as mandated by the Constitution) have reapportioned EC votes. For example, after the 1920 census, power shifted from rural to urban areas, and states who had the cities started receiving more EC votes. This is the history of EC voting in our country. Alas, we are living through another historical shift that will result either in cheering or booing, depending on your position.
The starting point is changing population.
- Democratic voters cluster in big cities and states like California and New York, creating huge vote margins there—but that mass of voters doesn’t create extra electoral votes beyond winning the state. Nine million can vote for a democratic president in NY and one million vote for a republican. That gets 28 EC votes for the democratic candidate. If 5.1 million vote for a democrat and 4.9 vote for a republican, that is still 28 EC votes for the democratic candidate.
- Republican voters are spread out across more states, winning by smaller margins but securing more states overall. Republicans often start closer to 270 votes. This balance between rural and urban creates a tension. Democrats must sweep more swing states (e.g., Pennsylvania, Michigan) to catch up, with less room for losses.
- The Electoral College system echoes our country’s Founders’ intent to protect smaller states to ensure fair representation. It is has been amplified since the Industrial Revolution, when cities grew Democratic while rural areas leaned Republican.
The results of the upcoming census will make the biggest difference in our lifetime.
- The census shows that people are migrating from high-cost, high-tax, high-regulation blue states (e.g., California, New York) to affordable red or purple ones (e.g., Texas, Florida, Utah). This isn’t new—similar “Sun Belt” shifts happened post-WWII, drawn by jobs and climate. Multiple Ph.D. dissertations are written on this trend supported by history.
- Upcoming census projections a dramatic shift due to the size of the current migration. California currently has 54 votes. It is expected to lose 4 votes and as many as 6. New York has 28. It will lose at least 2. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island will lose at least one. These were and are expected to remain democratic states.
- Where are those EC votes relocating to? Remember, the total is always 538. The census projections for the first half of the decade show that Texas and Florida shall each get 4 more. Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, and Idaho are expected to absorb those EC votes. These states are historically republican and expected to remain that way. And the winner in those states get all the EC votes.
- There is a thoughtful reason these trends are not being reported by liberal media. Democrats can’t fix this census shift with ads, media, or enticing candidates—it’s math. Nor is it fixed with a bunch of money and a well-received platform. This is math.
- It represents the ultimate fairness in American politics that the Founders desired. This is a classic “what comes around, goes around,” and an expected part of being in a country that changes. To add some historical clarity, between 1910 and 1970, African Americans migrated to Northern cities. This shifted the power to Democrats. Now, reverse flows are happening, and itfavors Republicans. This is driven by families seeking and having the ability to seek better lives. It isn’t politics that are making people move. It is the cost of housing, taxes, and disappearing freedoms that are leading them to depart.
The results mean that democrats will have fewer paths to 270 votes. After these census changes are implemented in 2030, the Democrats must win almost every swing state perfectly, every election—no mistakes allowed. And, this requirement lasts for ten years. All the while, Republicans retain wiggle room. They can lose most of the swing states and still win the EC vote.
To put it in perspective, let’s apply this to the last election. In 2024, Trump won 312 electoral votes and 31 states despite having media focus on his multiple legal convictions and moral shortcomings. Harris received 226 EC votes, despite much more positive media coverage. If they ran again after the post-census changes, and the state-by-state voting outcomes were identical, Trump would end up with 321 EC votes and Harris with 217. By the end of the decade, it might by 323 to 215 for the same voter outcomes. That is a shift in votes by the equivalent of the EC votes from Massachusetts.
This change scares some of you. Don’t let it. I know some of you are fearful of another Civil War. I hear it from people on both sides. I don’t think that will happen. Granted, liberals are tending towards extreme language and dysfunctional strategies to force us to perceive problems that aren’t there and not see the real problems. A democrat held the office of president the majority of time between 1930 and 2018. These population shifts are creating a change that needs to owned. The liberal grip on the white house shall diminish, and America will evolve.
If you are a republican, things are going your way, both now and into the future, for at least a the next decade. The American people are changing their license plates to places where you are the majority. Their new mortgages and driver’s licenses are evidence that they want your economy, your freedom, and your hope for the future of their families.
If you are a democrat, your first step is to own the math and its connection to EC voting outcomes. Your era of having your person in the oval office most of the time has passed. You need to come up with a strategy that convinces independents like me that you want them and avoid becoming a cassette tape of politics while the rest of the country plays their tunes in HD.
