| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Last July, I noted that population shifts had increased the electoral votes of the red states:
The Blue States are Losing Citizens – Is it Because of Their Liberal Policies?
Overall, the states that voted for Gore [in 2000] have lost citizens, while those that voted for Bush have gained citizens. Due to reapportionment, this has cost blue states electoral votes.
Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.
Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bushs states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gores are worth just 260.
...Could this be proof that the liberal policies of those blue states have failedin that they are driving their citizens away?
And in the beautiful tradition of American democracy, driving them to red states, thereby increasing red state electoral votes?
Per Patrick Ruffini, this trend is continuing:
Given the Census Bureau’s tendency to play it safe with estimates, and the fact that we’re less than halfway until the next Census, expect to see more than a net swing of four votes to the red states in the electoral college. Twelve or more seems like the conservative estimate.
It may well be that the Liberal policies of the blue states are driving their own populations away.
