SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: goldworldnet who wrote (250093)5/16/2008 10:24:56 AM
From: MJ  Read Replies (2) of 794162
 
FINAL COMPARISON BETWEEN ELECTORAL VOTES IN 1940 AND 2008 of the Contiguous States in 1940:

Summary:

14 States Gained Electoral Votes

26 States Lost Electoral Votes

8 States No Change in Electoral Votes



I took the list you provided comparing electoral votes states in 1940 with those in 2008 for the contiguous states as they existed in 1940.

These shifts follow migration patterns in the USA from country to cities and more recently along the East Coast from the North to South.

Contiguous States that have gained in the number of electoral votes in 2008 as compared to 1940:

1940 2008

3/ 10 Arizona
22/ 55 California
6/ 9 Colorado
7/ 27 Florida
12/ 15 Georgia
8/ 10 Maryland
3/5 New Mexico
13/ 15 North Carolina
5/ 7 Oregon
23/ 34 Texas
4/ 5 Utah
11/ 13 Virginia
8/ 11 Washington
8/ 11 West Virginia

At the same time that these 14 states gained electoral votes 26 states lost electoral votes:

11/ 9 Alabama
9/ 6 Arkansas
6/ 9 Colorado
8/ 7 Connecticut
29/ 21 Illinois
14/ 11 Indiana
11/ 7 Iowa
9/ 6 Kansas
11/ 8 Kentucky
10/ 9 Louisiana
5/ 4 Maine
17/ 12 Massachusetts
19/ 17 Michigan
11/ 10 Minnesota
9/ 6 Mississippi
15/ 11 Missouri
4/ 3 Montana
7/ 5 Nebraska
16/ 15 New Jersey
47/ 31 New York
4/ 3 North Dakota
26/ 20 Ohio
11/ 7 Oklahoma
36/ 21 Pennsylvania
4/ 3 South Dakota
12/ 10 Wisconsin

8 States showed no change in the number of electoral votes
from 1940 to 2008:

3/ 3 Delaware
4/ 4 Idaho
4/ 4 New Hampshire
4/ 4 Rhode Island
4/ 3 South Dakota
11/ 11 Tennessee
3/ 3 Vermont
3/ 3 Wyoming

This shows why one needs a VP that comes from a state with a reasonable number of electoral votes.

One can easily see why Clinton became a reverse carpet bagger and moved to New York to set herself up for the Presidential race as Arkansas has few electoral votes.

Likewise Obama also appears to have chosen his political set up by moving to Illinois and being from Hawaii. (Hawaii's count not shown as they were not a state in 1940)

John McCain is from Arizona which has gained electoral votes.

mj

P.S. The format is a little different----my copying of your list did not quite work so had to insert the slash marks. Thanks to everyone for editing.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News