After more than a conversation or two IRL, it made sense to share this math with everyone.  It is Political Science 101 regarding simpleton 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.

Presidential outcomes are always determined by the Electoral College (EC). No exceptions, not ever.  The people who cast those “real” votes are driven by the voters in their home states, and the number of voters each state sends is based on math, not science or public opinion.  Recognizing these undeniable starting points can be the most important foundation 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.

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.
  • How It Works Today: 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.
  • 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, but today it’s moving from high-tax urban states (all of them currently democratic) to lower-tax ones (most of them republican).  This is the history of voting in our country, and we are living through another significant change.
  1. The starting point is changing.
  • Democratic voters cluster in big cities and states like California and New York, creating huge vote margins there—but no extra electoral votes beyond winning the state.
  • Republican voters spread out across more states, winning by smaller margins but securing more states overall. This “efficiency” gives Republicans a built-in edge. Republicans often start closer to 270 votes. Democrats must sweep more swing states (e.g., Pennsylvania, Michigan) to catch up, with less room for losses.
  • This echoes our country’s Founders’ intent to protect smaller states, but now it amplifies urban-rural divides seen since the Industrial Revolution, when cities grew Democratic while rural areas leaned Republican.
  1. The results of the upcoming census will make the biggest difference in our lifetime.
  • 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.  And, we are living through another one.
  • Upcoming census projections will truly change the game.  California will lose 4 EC votes.  New York, at least 2.  Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island at least one.  They were all democrats this last time around and expected to remain.
  • Meanwhile, Texas, Florida, Utah, and Idaho are expected to absorb those EC votes.  They are historically republican and expected to remain that way.  This influx of voters from previous shifts in the census has not yet changed the voting direction of the entire state.  If they do this time, it will be a first!
  • Why It Matters: Democrats can’t fix this census shift with ads or candidates—it’s math.  Most liberals will go out of their way to avoid this fact and insist that we must pretend that these aren’t the real trends at play.
  • This is a historical “what comes around, goes around.”  African Americans migrated to Northern cities between 1910 and 1970, temporarily shifting power to Democrats. Now, reverse flows are happening, which favors Republicans, as families seek better lives.

Together, they stack against Democrats: The democrats now have fewer paths to 270 votes. Next time around, the Democrats must win almost every swing state perfectly, every election—no mistakes allowed. Republicans retain wiggle room.  This change in the balance recalls the 1850s, when demographic shifts (e.g., westward expansion) destabilized parties, leading to the Civil War.  I know some of you are fearful of another Civil War.  I don’t think that will happen.  Today, it’s less dramatic, but there is ample evidence that it is pushing Democrats toward extreme strategies.  For those of you who have been reading my posts, you see comments from extreme liberals who are either in denial about the direction of the American people or attempt to circle up around fake news that all of this math stuff is meaningless, and a single shooting here and there is what is most important.  NOT.

To put it in perspective, let’s do a before-and-after comparison. In the last election, Trump won 312 electoral votes and 31 states despite multiple legal convictions. Harris received only 226 despite much more positive media coverage. If they ran again in 2030, after the post-census changes, and the state-by-state voting outcomes were identical, Trump would end up with 322 EC votes and Harris with 216. That is math, not opinion.

Set the issues aside and look at the impact on your view of the future.  If you are a republican, things are going your way, both now and into the future.  If you are a Democrat, you need a plan.