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.
So? What are those reasons?
Did I forget any? Probably. Enough to change the election outcome in the majority of states? Most certainly not.
Yes, the US have some fucked up rules that make voting hard for some people and for that exact reason urgently need a voting system reform. Make voting easier and make changes that break the two party system.
Honestly, here in Germany we're infamous for still using fax machines for half our bureaucracy and even we manage to do it better than you. Here, elections are always on a Sunday when the vast majority of voters has the day off. Every elegible citizen gets a letter a couple of weeks before the election, informing them of their assigned polling station, based on their primary home address. If for any reason you can't be at your assigned polling station on election day (you work on Sundays, are on vacation, whatever), requesting a mail-in ballot is as easy as going to a website and entering your address and a PIN from the letter. Alternatively you can request one by mail. If for any reason you don't get that initial letter, figure out which polling station is the correct one for you (usually the closest one; ask your neighbors), show up on election day and show some government-issued ID. Done.
You realize that voting process is organized by individual states and hence is completely different depending on where you live, right? Some states are quite good about it and some are not.
In a lot of red states these days, the reason is “the election officials and Secretary of State (for the state in question) have made it extremely difficult - and in some cases impossible - for me to vote”.
I’m not saying the points you’re raising are irrelevant, but honestly, just look at Texas. It SHOULD be purple/swing, the legislature there has enacted swaths of anti-democratic (small “d”) measures with the expressly partisan intent of making it effectively impossible for any party other than the GOP to win anything meaningful in the state.
I live in Texas and completely disagree with your point there. Sure things have been gerrymandered to hell, but they’ve done so based on voting trends and not registered voters. We could easily flip even the most gerrymandered districts if people got out. Also don’t forget that the Governor and the President are decided by results that don’t care about Gerrymandered districts.
Texas also allows early voting, and all you need is your drivers license. Will it get 100% of people: no, but enough to make a difference. It feels like you’re falling into the same trap as the OP response here, that unless it’s 100% perfect it won’t make a difference.
That's not true in TX cities. I've lived in DFW, Houston metroplex, and Austin and have never had less than 15 polling places. They might not be next door to your work, but they are within a few monute drive.
TX was also the first state to allow early voting and mandates that polls are open at least 9 hours the first week and at least 12 hours the second week and final day of voting. That's the minimum, not maximum. There were also polling places open on the weekends.
That said, I have heard (although haven't researched it) that some very rural areas are more difficult to vote in with only a couple polling places in the county. So that could be the case if you live in the middle of nowhere, but you'll pass polling places on your way to/from work. Just think of it like you would a doctor appointment and put it on your schedule.
TX is pretty purple and is turning more blue each cycle.
2004: Kerry lost by ~1.9 million votes 2008: Obama lost by ~990,000 votes 2012: Obama lost by ~1.2 million votes 2016: Clinton lost by ~800,000 votes 2020: Biden lost by ~640,000 votes
In 2020, had just 3.5% more of the registered voters cast a ballot for Biden, he would have won. That's about how many people voted each day of early voting in this election.
In some states, you can't vote by mail except under specific circumstances, such as being a senior citizen or swearing that you'll be out of state entirely on election day.
The process is intimidating and confusing to a lot of people. Most states require you to pick a party when you register and many people don't want to pick a party not realizing they can vote however they want to later. They don't know who the candidates are or who supports what issue. Not everyone is politically engaged.
Sounds like something the political parties should be offering education in. “Come to our shindig, have some free bbq, and learn how to vote using current voting machines and mail in ballots! All ages welcome!”
Political parties like to put people into buckets and of you're from a certain area or demographic, then they don't want you to vote or they already assume they have your vote or that more votes don't matter.
Just because you can find reasons doesn't make them good ones. It's a civic duty.
I voted, but devils advocate here.
These are the big issues in my mind: Health care Housing Cost of living/ worker rights Climate change War in Gaza Infrastructure improvement
At absolute best maybe infrastructure and cost of living get addressed in a minor way.
The sad truth is that no candidate will fix these things. Even if they weren't such complex issues, big $$$$ will make sure 2/3s of these things remain the way they are.
Since I've been alive (born in 90s) I have only seen the decline of every system around me regardless of what polical party is in.
So yes I voted, yes I hope the people I voted for get in, yes they will reduce how quickly things are going downhill, but I do not expect them to even address most of those topics in a meaningful way.
It makes it difficult to give enough of a shit to vote in the first place. Even if my candidates win, the issues I care about the most will almost certainly not be fixed.
I recognize this is a very pessimistic view and I crave to be proven wrong but the last 20+ years I've lived would lead me to believe I will be correct.
See my first bullet point:
I recognize this and my reply in my comment is:
It's hard to get people motivated when they recognize that even their top pick will still not resolve any issues. I'm not saying you shouldn't vote because of that, I'm just saying I can empathize with that sentiment.