So far the total number of electoral votes tied into this scheme are 165. To see the effect this pact has on the 2016 Presidential Election outcome I decided to use the 2012 election as an example. In 2012 there were a total of 124 million votes cast across all states. So a voter's share of the the electoral process (I will call it "Voting Power") would be the number of Electoral votes the voter is voting to assign divided by the total number of voters who cast a ballot for those votes.
So, for instance, here in VA my vote power would be 13EV/3,888,186. For simplicity sake I then multiply the result by 1 million to get my Vote Power Score of 3.34
In 2012 The NY voter's vote power would be 31EV/7,128,852*1mil. That makes their Vote Power: 4.34
So the average New Yorker had about a 30% higher vote power than a Virginian in 2012. But what about 2016?
Well, New Yorkers will now -- assuming the same turnout -- have a vote power of 165EV/124,026,000*1mil. That makes their Vote power in 2016 only 1.33
BUT WAIT!! It gets better! Because of this scheme I now have that same 1.33 Voting power from the collective since I now essentially vote in all the pact states as well as my own state. So my voting power will be 4.67 ... or 350% higher than the average New Yorker.
Good job Governor Cuomo!!
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations. "Voting power" math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.
New York, like 80% of the states and voters, have no "voting power" under the current system.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.
Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.
None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.
About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
The state-by-state winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”
The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.