The re-apportionment of congressional districts connected to the 2010 census will result in several Democratic-leaning states, such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York, losing House seats. The loss of congressional members, also means these reliably blue states now have fewer votes in the Electoral College. The result could be that the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire gain even more importance in deciding who the next president will be.
If Obama wins re-election again with 53 percent of the popular vote and 365 electoral college votes, this minor change won’t make a difference, but if the 2012 presidential contest ends extremely tight, there could be an impact.
In 2008, the tipping-point state was Colorado. If, across the nation, 4.2 percent of voters switched from Obama to John McCain, Obama still would have won with 277 electoral votes. Barely winning Colorado’s nine electoral votes would have put him over the top. If, on the other hand, just over 4.3 percent switched from Obama to McCain, he would have lost Colorado and lost the presidency with a mere 268 electoral votes.
Even if we used the new, post-2010 census map, Colorado would still serve as the tipping-point state, since, on net, the states that voted more heavily for Obama than Colorado did are going to only lose six electoral seats. Even with the new apportionment, Obama would have won 271 electoral votes, so if all things remained equal, this census change wouldn’t change the presidential election.
Of course, things change over four years, and it is unlikely a drop in Obama’s share of the vote will be perfectly consistent across the all the states–but what would happen if we see only minor fluctuation compared to 2008?
In 2008, there were three states where Obama’s relative percentage of the vote put them very close to the tipping point. They were Colorado (9), Iowa (was 7 will be 6) and New Hampshire (4) in that order. With the 2008 numbers, Obama could still have won, even without Iowa or New Hampshire, as long as he still carried Colorado. With the new electoral college makeup, though, losing any of the three could cost him re-election. Thanks to the loss of congressional districts in blue states, all three hold the possibility of being the tipping-point state in 2012.
It is conceivable that a tight 2012 election could come down to these three states. Thanks to new census data, the odds that Iowa or New Hampshire could end up the tipping point that decides the 2012 election has probably increased ever so slightly. Ironically, the two early primary states might just have become modestly even more important in deciding who our president will be.



10 Comments
Talk about dictatorship of the minority. Truly disgusting.
I have to admit that I am really dumb on the gerrymandering stuff. Tell me why it is always a republican that gains ground?
I don’t understand how a state determines that the more people/more goopers.
Good Evening Econ,
You make a good point especially since Steve King R-idiot and Charles Grassley are both standout Republicans for the House and Senate respectively.
eCahn, I should have spelled your name right. Sorry
The idea that smaller states should primary before larger states is incredibly stupid. I really don’t care who Iowa wants as President as their demographics don’t come anywhere close to representing the country. I’m tired of hearing of how they voted for months and months during the primaries. I’m tired of listening to their hick politicians in congress. They need to just sit down!
Well, it’d be nice if each party had a single national primary day (ideally, a Top 2 nonpartisan primary). But at the same time, its a good idea to keep the Iowa and New Hampshire up front to weed out the vanity candidates early. Can’t speak for Iowa, but NH isn’t going anywhere. The legislature has delegated to the Secretary of State the discretion to move up the primary day unilaterally (even if its pulled into the prior year) in order to maintain NH’s first in the nation status.
There is a case to be made that it is easier and much cheaper to campaign in either Iowa or New Hampshire. That makes it possible for a candidate without huge money backing to have a creditable outing. We are always concerned here with the impact of money on politics. Isn’t it to our advantage to allow relatively less well funded (read bought) a real shot at the presidency? Do we require that a candidate raise enough money to be competitve in the large media markets before they can be taken seriously?
The writer of this article has absolutely no idea whatever what the term tipping-point state means. A tipping point (state, county) is one that progressed from a solid win for the other side over years to a very lean win for the other side, and then sometime tipped over to a LEAN win for the opposing side.
This is not the case with CO: Bush won CO in 2004 with a +4.67% margin. Obama swept CO in 2008 with a +8.95% margin (mini-landslide), causing a partisan shift of +13.62%, far greater than the national partisan shift of +9.71%. This was not a LEAN win in CO for Obama, it was a rout for McCain.
Secondly, with or without CO, Obama would have handily won. Alone with the Kerry states from 2004 +VA and NC he was already over the top.
The calculation of +4.2 vs +4.3 hypothetical shift for McCain in 2008 is also a bunch of horseshit, for there is absolutely no way to know where those votes likely would have been picked up.
So, this article is a bunch of hooey.
Here is a REAL analysis of COLORADO, county by county:
BTW, the analysis I linked to is in three parts. It is the most exhaustive analysis of CO from 2008 that I know of.
Yes, Grassley and King are embarrassments, but we have elected truly progressive candidates to the Senate and the House, too. Does your state have Senators and Congresspeople that only tow the progressive line? People in glass houses……
And, eCHAN, I normally love reading your posts, but I say the more up close and personal candidates have to get, the better. There is a plus to making these jokers travel from small town to small town, and Iowa has a high voting turnout compared to other states. But really, whatever. If you think we’re too stupid to start off the crappy political season with the crappy candidates they’re going to put up, I really don’t care who weeds out the boneheads.