In Missouri, Legislation to Remove a Major Roadblock to the 2016 Primary Calendar

The biggest threat right now to the intended order of the 2016 presidential primary calendar is now in Arizona, Florida or Michigan. Those states may prove to be the biggest thorns in this side of an order development to the 2016 nomination schedule, but as of right now, Missouri represents the largest threat to a primary calendar that kicks off in late January or early February instead of ringing in the new year.

Yes, Colorado and Minnesota have the first Tuesday in February as potential landing spots for their caucuses, and yes, both those contests under the new RNC rules passed in Tampa would have to be binding (as opposed to glorified straw polls). The Utah primary could also end up on that date, but funding has to be appropriated for that contest by the Utah legislature first. What FHQ means to suggest is that all three of those states have outs or alternative options embedded in their scheduling processes.

Missouri does not.

The Missouri statutes currently call for a presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February. And unless the Missouri general assembly alters the law, the 2016 presidential primary will be held on that date in 2016. That would mean a host of penalties from both parties. Some in the Missouri legislature know this but have been unable to marshall a majority coalition   to pass legislation moving the primary to a later and compliant date. [Well, that's not true. The legislature did pass such a bill in 2011, but included a poison pill affecting gubernatorial nominations that drew a veto from Governor Jay Nixon(D).] In both 2011 and 2012 legislation came before one or both houses of the legislature to shift the date of the presidential primary back to either April or June. The April plan has seemingly gained the most traction. At the very least such plan has come up repeatedly.

Such a bill(s) was introduced and died in 2011. Another was introduced and died in 2012. Now, back for a third go-round, another bill (HB 127) has been introduced by Representative Chrissy Sommer (R-106th, St. Charles) to move the presidential primary from early February to early April to coincide with the general municipal elections that take place on the same date. As FHQ mentioned throughout 2011, in the current economic climate, finding a landing place for a primary that is concurrent with other elections is attractive to legislators from a fiscal standpoint in that it helps reduce the number of elections and thus the total budgetary hit elections cause.

The Missouri legislature did act early with 2004 in mind; passing legislation to move to its current February position during 2002, but this is still a little early for 2016 calendar activity. Still, Missouri will be -- barring action taken in other states before then -- public enemy number one in the eyes of the parties heading into 2015 if something is not done regarding the Show Me state presidential primary before then.

Recent Posts:
Arizona Bill Introduced to Place Presidential Primary on the Same Date as Iowa Caucuses

Back in Business

The Unintended Consequences of Piecemeal Electoral College Reform. Or How to Turn Pennsylvania into New Hampshire

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Arizona Bill Introduced to Place Presidential Primary on the Same Date as Iowa Caucuses

State legislatures are only just beginning to convene their new sessions following the 2012 elections, but already 2016 is on the minds of legislators. In Arizona, that means a review of (and proposal regarding) the date of the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary. First term Representative Phil Lovas (R-22nd -- Peoria, Glendale) prefiled on January 2 a bill (HB 2017) in the Arizona House which would move the state's presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the coincide with the Iowa caucuses (once a date is settled on in the Hawkeye state).

This is notable for a number of reasons.

First of all, the Arizona primary as is currently scheduled (the fourth Tuesday) is already in violation of both the Republican and Democratic Party rules that governed the 2012 presidential delegate selection process. There is no indication -- either in the rules passed by the RNC at the 2012 convention in Tampa or within the DNC from what FHQ can gather -- that late February is going to be open season for states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Secondly, Arizona has been something of a problem child -- along with most notably Florida and Michigan -- in this date selection process for much of the post-reform era. In the 1988 cycle, for instance, Arizona Republicans began their delegate selection process with precinct caucuses in 1986. By the time of the 2012 cycle, Arizona had not only adopted a presidential primary as a means of allocating presidential nomination delegates -- abandoning the caucuses on the Republican side in 1996 -- but had added an institutional layer to the date-setting process that made the state better able to adapt to the moves of other states.

Leading up to the 2004 process, the state legislature introduced and passed a bill that set the date of the Arizona primary for the fourth Tuesday in February but also granted the governor the power to shift the date of the contest up (and only up) to a more advantageous position on the primary calendar. That gubernatorial proclamation power was noncontroversial when it was used in both 2004 and 2008, but became more of a weapon in 2012. In the former two cases, then-Governor Janet Napolitano (D) moved the primary up to the earliest date allowed by the two major parties. At that point, that was the first Tuesday in February. In the waning days of 2011, however, Governor Jan Brewer (R) used the power the legislature had ceded the governor in the 1990s to threaten to move the primary into January 2012 (a violation of party rules) as a way of ultimately extracting from the RNC a Republican presidential debate in Arizona before the state's primary.

The uncertainty of the date of the Arizona primary had the side effect of introducing even more chaos to an already chaotic evolution of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. The only catch to the governor's power was that a decision on wielding it had to be done at least 180 days in advance of when the primary was to take place. For a January date, then, action had to be taken by the governor in early September.

Rep. Lovas's legislation addresses not only the date, but the width of the window of time required for a primary date to be selected. As FHQ stated above, the bill would move the Arizona primary to a point that coincides with the Iowa caucuses. However, it also reduces by half the amount of time (90 days) between the governor's decision and when the primary will be held.

Astute readers will point out that the Iowa political parties may make a decision on a caucus date at a time that precludes Arizona from moving to the same date while adhering to the 90 day buffer the Grand Canyon state would provide elections officials to prepare for the administration of the primary election. In such an event, HB 2017 would allow the governor the ability to set the date as early as the next Tuesday following the passage of 90 days. In other words, the Arizona primary may not be on the same date as Iowa, but would be pretty close.

...close enough to mess with the date on which New Hampshire might like to hold its primary.

--
A few other notes on this bill:
1) As of now, there are no co-sponsors on HB 2017. There is, then, no way of know now how much support there is for a move that would likely violate both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules.
2) Though it happens occasionally, it is still pretty rare for a state to move its primary or pass legislation providing for the movement of said primary in the year after a presidential election. Instead, most of the successful legislative action takes place in the year before a presidential election.

That said, this is an aggressive move this early in the 2016 cycle. The Republican Party is pretty set on its rules for 2016, but the Democrats have yet to begin their process.

Recent Posts:
Back in Business

The Unintended Consequences of Piecemeal Electoral College Reform. Or How to Turn Pennsylvania into New Hampshire

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Back in Business

Well, the FHQ post-election winter hiatus is over.

And it is funny that Jonathan Bernstein should receive a question on the 2016 rules and steer folks this way. It is that time of year when the national parties are starting to/continuing to reexame their delegate selection rules and states -- whether state parties or state legislatures -- are beginning to make their first (typically unsuccessful) attempts at legislation (or state party bylaws) to change the dates of their primaries and caucuses.

On that note I should mention that FHQ will be sitting down to discuss the 2016 presidential nomination rules on the side of the RNC winter meetings in Charlotte next week before heading up to DC to give a talk and discuss the rules at the National Association of Secretaries of State winter conference. Both should trigger a number of items to be posted in this space.

Ready or not, 2016 starts now. Well, in truth it began back in August, but still...

Recent Posts:
The Unintended Consequences of Piecemeal Electoral College Reform. Or How to Turn Pennsylvania into New Hampshire

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum

The 2000 Electoral College Spectrum

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Unintended Consequences of Piecemeal Electoral College Reform. Or How to Turn Pennsylvania into New Hampshire

So Pennsylvania Senate majority leader, Dominic Pileggi (R-9th, Chester/Delaware), is pushing a new bill to reformulate the way in which the Keystone state allocates its electoral college votes?

Instead of allocating the electoral votes in a winner-take-all fashion -- as is the case in 48 states and the District of Columbia -- the senator initially proposed shifting to a districted allocation similar to method utilized in Maine and Nebraska. Now, however, the newly amended approach proposes allocating the electors proportionally. The statewide winner would receive the two electors representative of the two federal senate seats and the remaining electors would be allocated based on the proportion of the vote each candidate received.

There is a lot going on here, so let's start with the basics.

For starters, the partisan intent here is to break up the electoral vote bloc from a reliably Democratic state. [Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since (and including) 1992. That is six consecutive cycles.] That is, to cut into the Pennsylvania and overall national electoral vote tally for the the Democrats. Both of the plans proposed by Leader Pileggi accomplish this, but the newer version is less beneficial to the Republican Party. Due to the way in which the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature redrew the congressional district lines following the 2010 census, Mitt Romney would have won Pennsylvania, winning more districts and thus electoral votes under a districted allocation than Barack Obama. As Nick Baumann pointed out in the Mother Jones write up, that would likely have meant Romney winning the 13 (Republican) congressional districts and Obama taking the remaining five (Democratic) districts plus the two remaining electoral votes for winning statewide.

Fair or not, that would translate into Obama winning nearly 52% of the vote in Pennsylvania but taking only 35% of the electoral votes from the state.

Under the revised plan, Obama's 52% would translate into 55% of the electoral votes. The president and Mitt Romney would have evenly split the 18 non-statewide electoral votes and Obama would have won the remaining two statewide electors.¹ That is likely to be marginally more palatable to Democrats, but not nearly as good as taking all of the electoral votes under the current distribution.

Of course, there is unified Republican control (across the legislative and executive branches) in Pennsylvania that would not necessarily require Democratic support. But the intent of the switch in plans seems to be to create an argument based on fairness; that this is a fair way of allocating electoral votes. Pennsylvania Republicans would be on firmer ground with that argument on behalf of the revised allocation plan than attempting to push a districted plan that produces an allocation that does not reflect the statewide vote. ...or produces a distribution that is so noticeably distinct from the statewide vote.

--
Let's take a national detour here and FHQ will revisit the situation within Pennsylvania momentarily.

Normally, FHQ would be ecstatic at the prospect of such a rules change. In fact, I spent the weekend mulling over the implications nationwide. But this is not something that the Republican Party would necessarily want employed nationwide in each state. Strategically, a party would want to keep states that are reliably, in this case, Republican and maintain a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes there. That maximizes the number of electoral votes the party would receive. Ideally, the party would want to push this strategy in blue presidential states that are redder down-ballot. This means states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; Obama states where Republicans have unified control on the state level.

If we were to assume a proportional allocation of electoral votes across those five states based on the two-party vote (see footnote 1) that would have netted Mitt Romney an additional 40 electoral votes.² That would still have put the former Massachusetts governor short in the electoral vote tally (Obama 292, Romney 246). It would be closer, but still shy of the 270 electoral vote threshold.

Granted, the calculus is more complicated than this. The Republican Party (nationally) would not want to employ this strategy in states that it could win outright in a political climate slightly more favorable than the one the party faced in 2012. That is cannibalizing the party's own potential electoral vote total. This probably eliminates states like Florida and Ohio. In turn, that reduces the potential electoral vote gain from 40 to 19 under the currently apportioned electoral college (Obama 313, Romney 225).

Now sure, if race had been closer in 2012, the addition of 19 electoral votes (or 40) could have mattered. It would also potentially have increased the likelihood of an electoral college winner different from the popular vote winner. If those are the rules, a win is a win, but FHQ is not entirely sure that increasing the likelihood of a popular vote/electoral college split is a goal for which we should be aiming.

--
This brings us back to Pennsylvania.

Under the right conditions, Pennsylvania adopting a proportional method of electoral vote allocation could increase the likelihood of the aforementioned split. This is even more the case if toss up to lean blue but Republican-controlled states like Michigan and Wisconsin follow suit. But let's focus on a scenario where Pennsylvania walks this road alone. The plan as outlined by Leader Pileggi passes the Pennsylvania legislature and is signed into law sometime before 2016. What impact does that have?

Well, we know that the resulting electoral vote tally for the two major party candidates is likely to be close. The math in a state like Pennsylvania is such that the non-statewide allocation will be tied unless one candidate -- over the last six cycles, a Democrat -- clears just under 53% of the two-party vote. Assuming the Democrat does clear that barrier, he or she would win Pennsylvania by four electoral votes. If not, then that candidate would win the Keystone state by two electoral votes.

Why would any campaign waste much of any time or money on a state where they would... 1) under normal circumstances gain two electoral votes and 2) have to spend a lot of money in media markets like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh?

The answer is they likely wouldn't. FHQ is not suggesting that the campaigns would not spend any time or money in Pennsylvania. Some resources would be spent there to be sure. But the motivation would perhaps be to spend money in a state where the electoral vote gain is going to be larger. There is a reason the Romney campaign turned to Pennsylvania late in the 2012 race. Ohio was not budging and even though Pennsylvania represented a state that was further toward the Democrats than the Buckeye state, it was one that was both largely proximate to Ohio in electoral vote strength and one that had to that point seen comparatively little campaign activity (There were potentially persuadable voters there.). With a diluted Pennsylvania, the next best options for the Romney campaign would have been to turn the focus to a similarly sized state even further out on the Electoral College Spectrum (like Michigan) or to spread resources across several states in an effort to recoup electoral votes lost in Ohio.

--
This plan just seems shortsighted. FHQ gets the perceived benefit in a national zero-sum game of winning electoral votes. And when couched in terms of fairly reflecting the statewide vote in the electoral vote tally the argument is even more convincing on the surface.

• Yet, is it fair to Pennsylvanians to reduce the clout of their state in the electoral college -- to reduce the potential electoral vote prize there with the likely result of decreasing attention to the state? 
• Is this reasonable when an exchange of nine electoral votes is very likely not going to alter the outcome of the electoral college? [The outcome is rarely that close. It would have made Bush's electoral college win wider in 2000, but would not have gotten him any closer to winning the popular vote. The intent in Pennsylvania anyway is to overturn a Democratic win in the electoral college. Those nine electoral votes would not have made a difference in any of the Democratic wins in either the 20th or 21st centuries. Even if you pull Michigan and Wisconsin in, it doesn't change anything. In some cases during Democratic electoral college wins those states were voting Republican.] 
• Is is fair to Pennsylvanians to transform Pennsylvania into New Hampshire in the electoral college? [Yes folks, New Hampshire receives attention, but it receives the sort of attention a competitive state with four electoral votes would receive when compared to one with 20: less.] 

Why do that? Why dilute the value of a state in the electoral college for less than clear benefits?

Beware the unintended consequences of altering electoral rules.

--
¹ There are a couple of interrelated items that remain unclear in the updated proposal. First, there is no mention of how fractional electoral votes will be treated. Second, there is no mention of third party candidates. If this is to be anything like delegate allocation in the nomination phase of the presidential election process, then there is likely to be a threshold that third parties have to reach in order to receive electoral votes. As it stands, a third party candidate has to win 5.56% of the vote in Pennsylvania in order to win one electoral vote. Even that is a high bar and may negate the need of a threshold. However, this has implications for the first issue: How and on what is the rounding of fractional electoral votes based? If no third party candidate crosses the 5.56% threshold, then that means the allocation of electoral votes would be based most logically on the two-party vote (or the percentage of the vote for each candidate who cleared 5.56%). As that count currently stands, Obama has 52.73% of the two-party vote which equals 9.491 (out of 18) electoral votes. That is not enough to round up to the 10 non-statewide electoral votes that Leader Pileggi's memo allocates to Obama. Either something is not right about that math or the rounding mechanism has not been adequately outlined.

² The breakdown would look like the following:
Florida -- Obama: 16 (2 statewide + 14 non-statewide), Romney: 13
Michigan -- Obama: 10 (2 statewide + 8 non-statewide), Romney: 6
Ohio -- Obama: 10 (2 statewide + 8 non-statewide), Romney: 8
Pennsylvania -- Obama: 11 (2 statewide + 9 non-statewide), Romney: 9
Wisconsin -- Obama: 6 (2 statewide + 4 non-statewide). Romney: 4

This raises a couple of interesting points:
1) It is quite difficult to receive a high enough share of the two-party vote to round up and create any kind of cushion in the non-statewide electoral vote allocation. That means that the true difference in a moderately competitive state (Remember the targets are going to be blue states with Republican control. Those are typically going to be more competitive states on the presidential level.) will be equal to the two electoral votes allocated based on the statewide vote with one exception...
2) If things are extremely close, rationally acting candidates would prefer to push resources into states with an odd number of electoral votes. Winning a state with an odd number of electoral votes would produce a one electoral vote differential between two major party candidates in the non-statewide allocation plus the two electoral votes awarded to the statewide winner. These are exactly the types of calculations the Obama campaign was using during the 2008 Democratic primaries (and caucuses!).

Recent Posts:
The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum

The 2000 Electoral College Spectrum

The 1996 Electoral College Spectrum

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum

From 2000 to 2004:

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-12 (15)2	DE-3 (157)	NM-5 (264/279)	WV-5 (158)	TX-34 (79)
RI-4 (19)	WA-11 (168)	OH-204 (284/274)	TN-11 (153)	KS-6 (45)
VT-3 (22)	NJ-15 (183)	NV-5 (254)	LA-9 (142)	AK-3 (39)
NY-31 (53)	OR-7 (190)	CO-9 (249)	GA-15 (133)	AL-9 (36)
MD-10 (63)	MN-103 (200)	FL-27 (240)	SC-8 (118)	ND-3 (27)
CT-7 (70)	MI-17 (217)	MO-11 (213)	MS-6 (110)	OK-7 (24)
IL-21 (91)	PA-21 (238)	VA-13 (202)	KY-8 (104)	NE-5 (17)
CA-55 (146)	NH-4 (242)	AR-6 (189)	MT-3 (96)	ID-4 (12)
ME-4 (150)	WI-10 (252)	AZ-10 (183)	IN-11 (93)	WY-3 (8)
HI-4 (154)	IA-7 (259/286)	NC-15 (173)	SD-3 (82)	UT-5 (5)
1Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Kerry had won all the states up to and including Ohio, he would have gained 284 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 3One of the Minnesota electors voted for John Edwards for both president and vice president. As a result, John Kerry's official electoral vote total was 251. For the purposes of the figure it will be assumed that the Democratic Party "won" that electoral vote and it is thus included above. 4Ohio is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

NOTES:
1) Again, the movement of the color lines from cycle to cycle is not as important as the changes in ordering of the states.

2) On that front, there was very little substantial movement on the spectrum from 2000-2004. That was particularly true given how little changed in the electoral college in across the two cycles. Only New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico jumped the partisan line. The Granite state flipped blue while Iowa and New Mexico turned red. What is striking outside of that is how "surprising" 2008 toss ups like North Carolina and Virginia moved into position in the middle column  on the 2004 spectrum. And that disregards margin. Despite the fact that North Carolina was Bush +12 and Virginia was Bush +8 in 2004, each fell at a spot in the order that put it in range of being attainable in future elections. That range in a non-landslide election tends to include all of the toss up states and the middle column (...should those two be distinct from each other). Of the 2008-2012 battleground states, only Indiana was outside of that range.

3) The other shuffling outside of the range was just that, shuffling. Vermont shifted deeper into the Democratic column and Alabama moved slightly more, further into the Republican column. Those border/Appalachian states were all to the right of North Carolina and Virginia. That did not involve a lot of movement but is indicative of their change relative to each other in the order.

4) Of the six elections examined thus far (1984-2004), the tipping point state has been in the second position down in the middle column four times. On the surface, that points toward a certain continuity of states in each party's coalition (of states) over time. More to the point, it speaks to the consistency of the coalition of states on either side of the tipping point from cycle to cycle regardless of where the partisan line may fall.

--
Electoral College Spectrum -- Estimated monthly averages

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (Election Day -- 11/2/04)
MA-12 (15)2	NJ-15 (175)	OH-204 (274/284)	AZ-10 (163)	TX-34 (73)
RI-4 (19)	ME-4 (179)	FL-27 (264)	TN-11 (153)	MT-3 (39)
NY-31 (50)	MI-17 (196)	WI-10 (237)	LA-9 (142)	KS-6 (36)
CT-7 (57)	OR-7 (203)	WV-5 (227)	GA-15 (133)	ND-3 (30)
IL-21 (78)	HI-4 (207)	NV-5 (222)	SC-8 (118)	AK-3 (27)
MD-10 (88)	MN-10 (217)	AR-6 (217)	MS-6 (110)	OK-7 (24)
CA-55 (143)	PA-21 (238)	MO-11 (211)	SD-3 (104)	ID-4 (17)
VT-3 (146)	NH-4 (242)	CO-9 (200)	KY-8 (101)	NE-5 (13)
DE-3 (149)	NM-5 (247)	VA-13 (191)	IN-11 (93)	WY-3 (8)
WA-11 (160)	IA-7 (254/291)	NC-15 (178)	AL-9 (82)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Kerry had won all the states up to and including Ohio, he would have gained 274 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 3 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 4 Ohio is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (10/5/04)
MA-12 (15)2	WA-11 (164)	FL-274 (281/284)	AZ-10 (163)	TX-34 (73)
RI-4 (19)	NJ-15 (179)	OH-20 (257)	TN-11 (153)	MT-3 (39)
NY-31 (50)	MI-17 (196)	WV-5 (237)	GA-15 (142)	KS-6 (36)
CT-7 (57)	ME-4 (200)	WI-10 (232)	LA-9 (127)	AK-3 (30)
IL-21 (78)	MN-10 (210)	NV-5 (222)	SC-8 (118)	OK-7 (27)
CA-55 (133)	NM-5 (215)	AR-6 (217)	KY-8 (110)	ND-3 (20)
VT-3 (136)	OR-7 (222)	CO-9 (211)	MS-6 (102)	ID-4 (17)
MD-10 (146)	PA-21 (243)	MO-11 (202)	SD-3 (96)	NE-5 (13)
HI-4 (150)	NH-4 (247)	VA-13 (191)	IN-11 (93)	WY-3 (8)
DE-3 (153)	IA-7 (254)	NC-15 (178)	AL-9 (82)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Kerry had won all the states up to and including Florida, he would have gained 281 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 3 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 4 Florida is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (9/7/04)
MA-12 (15)2	HI-4 (168)	WV-5 (259)	NC-15 (167)	WY-3 (76)
RI-4 (19)	WA-11 (179)	OH-205 (279/279)	AZ-10 (152)	KS-6 (73)
NY-31 (50)	ME-4 (183)	FL-27 (306/259)	SC-8 (142)	MT-3 (67)
VT-33 (53)	MN-10 (193)	WI-10 (232)	GA-15 (134)	TX-34 (64)
IL-21 (74)	MI-17 (210)	NV-5 (222)	KY-8 (119)	NE-5 (30)
CT-7 (81)	OR-7 (217)	AR-6 (217)	SD-3 (111)	AK-3 (25)
DE-3 (84)	IA-7 (224)	CO-9 (211)	LA-9 (108)	OK-7 (22)
MD-10 (94)	NM-5 (229)	VA-13 (202)	ND-3 (99)	ID-4 (15)
CA-55 (149)	PA-21 (250)	MO-11 (189)	IN-11 (96)	MS-6 (11)
NJ-15 (164)	NH-4 (254)	TN-11 (178)	AL-9 (85)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Bush had won all the states up to and including Ohio, he would have gained 279 electoral votes. Bush's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 3 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering. 4 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 5 Ohio is the state where Kerry crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (8/3/04)
MA-12 (15)2	HI-4 (168)	OH-204 5 (274/284)	TN-11 (168)	KS-6 (76)
RI-4 (19)	ME-4 (172)	WI-10 (284/264)	NC-15 (157)	WY-3 (70)
NY-31 (50)	WA-11 (183)	WV-5 (289/254)	SC-8 (142)	MT-3 (67)
VT-33 (53)	MN-10 (193)	FL-27 (249)	GA-15 (134)	TX-34 (64)
CT-7 (60)	NM-5 (198)	NV-5 (222)	KY-8 (119)	NE-5 (30)
IL-21 (81)	MI-17 (215)	AR-6 (217)	LA-9 (111)	AK-3 (25)
DE-3 (84)	IA-7 (222)	MO-11 (211)	SD-3 (102)	OK-7 (22)
MD-10 (94)	OR-7 (229)	VA-13 (200)	ND-3 (99)	ID-4 (15)
CA-55 (149)	PA-21 (250)	CO-9 (187)	IN-11 (96)	MS-6 (11)
NJ-15 (164)	NH-4 (254)	AZ-10 (178)	AL-9 (85)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Bush had won all the states up to and including Ohio, he would have gained 284 electoral votes. Bush's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 3 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering. 4 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 5 Ohio is the state where Kerry crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (7/6/04)
MA-12 (15)2	NJ-15 (168)	WI-10 (279/269)	TN-11 (158)	KS-6 (76)
RI-4 (19)	ME-4 (172)	WV-5 (259)	NV-5 (147)	WY-3 (70)
NY-31 (50)	MN-10 (182)	FL-27 (254)	GA-15 (142)	MT-3 (67)
HI-43 (54)	WA-11 (193)	NM-5 (227)	LA-9 (127)	TX-34 (64)
VT-3 (57)	IA-7 (200)	AR-6 (222)	KY-8 (118)	NE-5 (30)
CT-7 (64)	MI-17 (217)	VA-13 (216)	SC-8 (110)	AK-3 (25)
IL-21 (85)	OR-7 (224)	MO-11 (203)	SD-3 (102)	OK-7 (22)
DE-3 (88)	OH-20 (244)	CO-9 (192)	ND-3 (99)	ID-4 (15)
MD-10 (98)	PA-21 (265)	AZ-10 (183)	IN-11 (96)	MS-6 (11)
CA-55 (153)	NH-45 (269/273)	NC-15 (173)	AL-9 (85)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Kerry had won all the states up to and including New Hampshire and Wisconsin, he would have gained 279 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 3 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering. 4 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 5 New Hampshire would be the state where Bush crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election.  If New Hampshire was won by Kerry and Wisconsin by Bush, as is the case here, there would be a tie in the electoral college. Each candidate would need both states to surpass the 270 mark. Collectively then, New Hampshire and Wisconsin represent the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (6/1/04)
RI-42 (7)3	NJ-15 (162)	FL-275 (286/279)	NV-5 (158)	AK-3 (79)
MA-12 (19)	MD-10 (172)	OH-20 (306/252)	TN-11 (153)	OK-7 (76)
NY-31 (50)	MN-10 (182)	NM-5 (232)	SC-8 (142)	WY-3 (69)
HI-4 (54)	WA-11 (193)	VA-13 (227)	GA-15 (134)	MT-3 (66)
ME-4 (58)	IA-7 (200)	MO-11 (214)	LA-9 (119)	AL-9 (63)
VT-3 (61)	MI-17 (217)	WV-5 (203)	KY-8 (110)	NE-5 (54)
CT-7 (68)	PA-21 (238)	AR-6 (198)	SD-3 (102)	TX-34 (49)
IL-21 (89)	OR-7 (245)	AZ-10 (192)	ND-3 (99)	ID-4 (15)
DE-3 (92)	NH-4 (249)	CO-9 (182)	IN-11 (96)	MS-6 (11)
CA-55 (147)	WI-10 (259)	NC-15 (173)	KS-6 (85)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering.  3 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Bush had won all the states up to and including Florida, he would have gained 279 electoral votes. Bush's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 4 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 5 Florida is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (5/4/04)
RI-42 (7)3	MN-10 (157)	FL-275 (285/280)	NC-15 (158)	ND-3 (52)
MA-12 (19)	MD-10 (167)	PA-21 (253)	NV-5 (143)	KY-8 (49)
HI-4 (23)	WA-11 (178)	NM-5 (232)	MT-3 (138)	KS-6 (41)
NY-31 (54)	IA-7 (185)	AR-6 (227)	TN-11 (135)	AL-9 (35)
CT-7 (61)	NJ-15 (200)	WV-5 (221)	TX-34 (124)	AK-3 (26)
VT-3 (64)	MI-17 (217)	GA-15 (216)	SD-3 (90)	WY-3 (23)
ME-4 (68)	NH-4 (221)	VA-13 (201)	SC-8 (87)	NE-5 (20)
IL-21 (89)	WI-10 (231)	AZ-10 (188)	OK-7 (79)	ID-4 (15)
DE-3 (92)	OH-20 (251)	CO-9 (178)	IN-11 (72)	MS-6 (11)
CA-55 (147)	OR-7 (258)	MO-11 (169)	LA-9 (61)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering.  3 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Kerry had won all the states up to and including Ohio, he would have gained 285 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 4 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 5 Florida is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (4/6/04)
RI-42 (7)3	CA-55 (162)	FL-275 (282/283)	NC-15 (162)	IN-11 (57)
NY-31 (38)	AR-6 (168)	NM-5 (256)	MT-3 (147)	LA-9 (46)
MA-12 (50)	IA-7 (175)	PA-21 (251)	TN-11 (144)	ND-3 (37)
HI-4 (54)	MN-10 (185)	NH-4 (230)	CO-9 (133)	KY-8 (34)
CT-7 (61)	MD-10 (195)	WI-10 (226)	AL-9 (124)	KS-6 (26)
VT-3 (64)	WA-11 (206)	GA-15 (216)	TX-34 (115)	AK-3 (20)
ME-4 (68)	MI-17 (223)	VA-13 (201)	SD-3 (81)	WY-3 (17)
IL-21 (89)	OH-20 (243)	AZ-10 (188)	SC-8 (78)	NE-5 (14)
DE-3 (92)	OR-7 (250)	MO-11 (178)	MS-6 (70)	ID-4 (9)
NJ-15 (107)	WV-5 (255)	NV-5 (167)	OK-7 (64)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering.  3 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Kerry had won all the states up to and including Florida, he would have gained 282 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 4 States in bold are states with polling margin averages less than one percentage point. 5 Florida is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The 2004 Electoral College Spectrum1 --  Estimated (3/2/04)
RI-42 (7)3	NJ-15 (162)	NM-5 (244)	TN-11 (172)	NC-15 (59)
MA-12 (19)	WA-11 (173)	WI-10 (254)	GA-15 (161)	OK-7 (44)
NY-31 (50)	ME-4 (177)	MO-11 (265)	VA-13 (146)	KS-6 (37)
HI-4 (54)	MN-10 (187)	LA-94 (274/273)	IN-11 (133)	ND-3 (31)
VT-3 (57)	AR-6 (193)	OH-20 (294/264)	MT-3 (122)	KY-8 (28)
NH-4 (61)	MD-11 (203)	FL-27 (321/244)	AL-9 (119)	AK-3 (20)
IL-21 (82)	WV-5 (208)	PA-21 (342/217)	TX-34 (110)	WY-3 (17)
CT-7 (89)	IA-7 (215)	NV-5 (196)	SD-3 (76)	NE-5 (14)
CA-55 (144)	OR-7 (222)	CO-9 (191)	SC-8 (73)	ID-4 (9)
DE-3 (147)	MI-17 (239)	AZ-10 (182)	MS-6 (65)	UT-5 (5)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%). 2 States highlighted in orange lettering are states where no polling data is available. In those cases the average of the previous three elections is used to determine the state's position in the rank ordering.  3 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Bush had won all the states up to and including Louisiana, he would have gained 274 electoral votes. Kerry's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Bush's number is on the right and Kerry's is on the left in italics. The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots. 4 Louisiana is the state where Kerry would cross the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Recent Posts:
The 2000 Electoral College Spectrum

The 1996 Electoral College Spectrum

The 1992 Electoral College Spectrum

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.