Reading about how swing states are important for the election, I was wondering how safe the “safe states” actually are. So I plugged some numbers into a spreadsheet, and came to some interesting (?) results.

So first, the data. I used the 2020 election results, starting with Turnout_2020G_v1.2.csv (from https://election.lab.ufl.edu/voter-turnout/2020-general-election-turnout/) for number of people eligible to vote (columns D and E). Added the results from https://www.fec.gov/documents/4228/federalelections2020.xlsx (H, I, J, and K calculated from that), and the number of registered voters from https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_affiliations_of_registered_voters#2021 (F and G). Non-voters L is eligible voters minus total votes (E - L). Democrats M and Republicans N is the bigger of registered and voters (F or H; G or I), to see if that makes a difference in swinginess. Columns P and Q are the results calculated from the table to make sure it works (Maine and Nebraska cancel each other out), row 54 is the sum of the column above.

The results: Columns R are the states where non-voters alone are the biggest group, S adds third party voters to that, resulting in 148 or 156 electors that could vote for anyone. Columns T and U are each of Democrats and Republicans plus non-voters, and here the non-voters could help each party win everywhere, except DC which is safe for Democrats. For funsies I added the last column V that calculates non-voters from the voting-age, not voting-eligible population, resulting in 287 electors for anyone.

Conclusion? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia could be “rainbow states” that could send electors for any candidate. The rest except for DC could vote for either Democrats or Republicans, making all of them swing states. And maybe the fear of non-citizen voters (which I think is the majority of the difference between voting-age and voting-eligible people) determining the election results is valid. Or maybe that means that a significant amount of people living in the US and thus being affected by its government are not represented by said government.

The End: Of course that completely disregards non-voter demographics, even if they would vote they’re not likely to all vote the same. Still, enough motivated ex-non-voters could turn basically any state into a swing state. One vote of someone who thinks their vote doesn’t matter won’t change much, but the votes of all who think that way certainly can.

  • @cobwoms@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12 months ago

    you should take another look at the questions being asked. when asked about genocide specifically, more americans would want to act to prevent genocide. you don’t need to fall for the misinformation designed to polarize

    • @dontgooglefinderscult
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Sure, and police really don’t ever want to kill unarmed nonviolent civilians but it keeps happening so…

      If you vote for Harris for any reason relating to trump, you think genocide is the price to pay to avoid that. If you vote for Harris for any other reason, genocide isn’t a problem for you. Ditto for Trump voters.

      If I say I hate literally shitting on humans but actively choose either a random child or my child to shit on, clearly it’s either not that big of a deal to me, or I actively want it.

      There is always more than two options in all things, and if two of your options are genocide, as a human being you have a duty to pick any other option.