View source for The Extreme Math of the Electoral College

---

== Why the Federal Government is not Responsive to Majority Opinion ==



==1. The Odd Skeleton-The Electoral College==
I'll post my entire ChatGpt session below but I'll summarize the main points I was searching for.

'''The Electoral College is much worse then most people think.'''

It is mathematically possible for a President to be elected if only '''12 people''' (that's individuals not percent!) voted for him/her. That's 12 people vs maybe a 200,000,000 people against. The exact numbers are not important here it is the extreme nature of the Electoral College that allows this to happen. It's like 1980's software with huge inherent flaws, anyone can easily exploit the system. Anyone with a lot of money that is. One obvious way is; voter suppression in its many forms. 
 
 ChatGPT: "So, in a purely mathematical scenario, a candidate could win with 12 total votes, one vote in each of those 12 states, if every other eligible voter in those states cast no vote."

So of course that is a very unlikely scenario but it makes it very clear what the Republican voter suppression agenda is trying to accomplish. If Blue States have large voter participation and Red States have lower voter participation it makes it much easier for a President to be elected by a minority of the people. '''The Red States still get all their votes even if only 1 person votes'''.  I don't mean just a minority of the popular vote, because voter suppression can reduce the number of eligible voters as well.  

So when you hear Trump and other Republicans bad-mouth States with high voter turnouts, by making ridiculous and unsupported claims, you know exactly what they are doing. Take two states with a large population of minorities including many undocumented people (who of course are not eligible to vote in either State).

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Voter Turnout in the 2024 General Election
! State
! Turnout of registered voters
! Turnout of eligible / adult population
|-
| California
| 71.43%
| 59.97% of eligible-to-register population
|-
| Texas
| 61.15%
| 49.65% of voting-age population
|}

Even without voting suppression the deck is stacked against large states: So, in this mathematical scenario:

 Group Population Share of U.S. + D.C. population Electoral votes Smallest-population winning coalition 147,305,995 43.1% 270 Remaining states 193,839,675 56.9% 268 So a candidate could theoretically win the presidency while representing states containing about 43% of the population, while the losing side could represent states containing about 57% of the population.

==Next Up The US Senate==

----------
------
-------

I’ll calculate this by sorting states plus D.C. from smallest to largest population, then adding their Electoral College votes until the total reaches at least 270.

Thought for 1m 2s
Using 2025 Census population estimates and the current 2024/2028 Electoral College allocation, the mathematically smallest-population coalition that reaches 270 electoral votes is 39 states + D.C., totaling about:

147,305,995 people
270 electoral votes
That is about 43.1% of the U.S. population.

The Electoral College has 538 total votes, and 270 are needed to win. Current allocations are based on the 2020 Census and apply to the 2024 and 2028 elections. 
 The population source is the Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 state population estimates. 

State / D.C.	2025 population	Electoral votes
Wyoming	588,753	3
Vermont	644,663	3
District of Columbia	693,645	3
Alaska	737,270	3
North Dakota	799,358	3
South Dakota	935,094	3
Delaware	1,059,952	3
Rhode Island	1,114,521	4
Montana	1,144,694	4
Maine	1,414,874	4
New Hampshire	1,415,342	4
Hawaii	1,432,820	4
West Virginia	1,766,147	4
Nebraska	2,018,006	5
Idaho	2,029,733	4
New Mexico	2,125,498	5
Mississippi	2,954,160	6
Kansas	2,977,220	6
Arkansas	3,114,791	6
Iowa	3,238,387	6
Nevada	3,282,188	6
Utah	3,538,904	6
Connecticut	3,688,496	7
Oklahoma	4,123,288	7
Oregon	4,273,586	8
Kentucky	4,606,864	8
Louisiana	4,618,189	8
Alabama	5,193,088	9
South Carolina	5,570,274	9
Minnesota	5,830,405	10
Wisconsin	5,972,787	10
Colorado	6,012,561	10
Maryland	6,265,347	10
Missouri	6,270,541	10
Indiana	6,973,333	11
Massachusetts	7,154,084	11
Virginia	8,880,107	13
Michigan	10,127,884	15
Illinois	12,719,141	19
Total	147,305,995	270
Important caveat: this is a population math exercise, not a realistic election map. Also, Maine and Nebraska do not use full winner-take-all allocation, so in a real election a candidate would need to win the relevant statewide and congressional-district electoral votes there. 


And what is the total population in the remaining states

Thought for a couple of seconds
The remaining states would have approximately:

193,839,675 people

That is calculated as:

Total U.S. + D.C. population: 341,145,670
minus
Smallest-population 270-EV coalition: 147,305,995

= 193,839,675 people

So, in this mathematical scenario:

Group	Population	Share of U.S. + D.C. population	Electoral votes
Smallest-population winning coalition	147,305,995	43.1%	270
Remaining states	193,839,675	56.9%	268
So a candidate could theoretically win the presidency while representing states containing about 43% of the population, while the losing side could represent states containing about 57% of the population.


If a state theoretically used extreme voter suppression could a presidential candidate win with one vote?

try again

Thought for 9s
Under the normal Electoral College system, no — one single vote nationwide would not be enough to win the presidency, because one state’s electoral votes would not reach 270.

But under a very extreme theoretical turnout scenario, a candidate could win with a tiny number of votes, because most states award all their electoral votes to whoever wins that state’s popular vote, even if turnout is extremely low.

For example:

A candidate could theoretically win the Electoral College by getting one vote in each of enough states to reach 270 electoral votes, assuming no one else voted in those states.

The fewest state-level wins needed to reach 270 electoral votes would be the largest states:

California — 54
Texas — 40
Florida — 30
New York — 28
Pennsylvania — 19
Illinois — 19
Ohio — 17
Georgia — 16
North Carolina — 16
Michigan — 15
New Jersey — 14
Virginia — 13
Total — 281 electoral votes
So, in a purely mathematical scenario, a candidate could win with 12 total votes, one vote in each of those 12 states, if every other eligible voter in those states cast no vote.

That is different from your earlier population example. The earlier example asked: What is the smallest population of states needed to reach 270 electoral votes?
This new question asks: What is the smallest number of actual votes cast needed to win those electoral votes?

In practice, extreme voter suppression would be illegal and challengeable under federal and state law, including the Voting Rights Act, constitutional protections, court oversight, and election certification procedures. But mathematically, the Electoral College does not require a minimum turnout percentage for a state’s electoral votes to count.


No I mean, could any particular state create election laws that made only one person eligible to vote in that state's presidential election?

Thought for 6s
No. A state could not lawfully create rules making only one person eligible to vote in that state’s presidential election.

The reason is that states have broad power over elections, but not unlimited power. Once a state uses a popular vote to choose presidential electors, it must follow federal constitutional rules, including equal protection and voting-rights amendments.

The main barriers are:

1. Race, sex, age, and poll-tax discrimination are expressly forbidden.
The Constitution says states may not deny or abridge the vote based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay a poll tax in federal elections, or age for citizens 18 and older. Those rules are in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. 

2. Equal Protection would almost certainly prohibit an arbitrary “only one voter” law.
The 14th Amendment requires equal protection of the laws, and voting rules are one of the areas where courts scrutinize discriminatory or irrational classifications. A state could not say, for example, “only John Smith may vote,” “only landowners may vote,” or “only members of one party may vote” without running directly into constitutional problems. 

3. Federal law and the Voting Rights Act would also matter.
A law designed to exclude nearly everyone would almost certainly be challenged immediately as voter suppression, vote dilution, or intentional discrimination, depending on how it was written and whom it excluded.

There is one separate theoretical issue: under Article II, states historically had power to decide the “manner” of appointing presidential electors, and currently all states use a popular vote. 
 In theory, a state might try to stop holding a presidential popular vote and have the legislature appoint electors directly. That would be a different scenario from “only one person is eligible to vote.” It would be politically explosive and legally contested, especially under modern federal election law and constitutional protections.

So the clean answer is:

A state cannot legally hold a presidential election while limiting eligibility to one chosen voter.
But if only one person actually voted because everyone else voluntarily stayed home, that one vote could theoretically decide that state’s electoral votes.


I’ll interpret “regularly vote Republican” as states that have consistently voted Republican in recent presidential elections, while noting a few that are mixed or Democratic-leaning.

Thought for 12s
Using recent presidential voting patterns, about 15 of the 25 smallest voting-age-population states regularly vote Republican.

I would classify them this way:

Category	States	Count
Regularly Republican	Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, Oklahoma, Louisiana	15
Regularly Democratic	Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Mexico, Connecticut, Oregon	7
Mixed / swing / split	New Hampshire, Maine, Nevada	3
So the answer is:

15 of the 25 smallest states regularly vote Republican.
That means the smallest-state path to 50 senators is not automatically a Republican path, but it is structurally tilted toward Republicans because a clear majority of the smallest states are Republican-leaning in recent presidential elections.

For context, 270toWin tracks state-by-state presidential voting history through 2024, and its historical data shows many of these small-population states have long Republican streaks, while states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Connecticut, and Oregon are consistently Democratic. 


Can you breakdown for me the current Senators and the number of people they represent into Republicans and Democrats (count Independents as the party they usually caucus with.

I’ll calculate this by assigning each state’s full population to each of its two senators, then summing by caucus. For split states, each party gets that state’s population once.

Thought for 56s
Yes. Using current Senate seats in the 119th Congress and 2025 Census state population estimates, the breakdown is:

Caucus	Senators	Population represented by those senators	Share of Senate seats	Share of senator-population representation
Republican	53	318,015,067	53%	46.6%
Democratic caucus	47	364,167,357	47%	53.4%
I counted the two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, with the Democratic caucus. The official Senate list shows the current Senate as 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independents. 
 The population figures use the Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 state resident population estimates. 

Important method note: because every state has two senators, each state’s population is counted once for each senator. So if both senators are Republican, that state’s population is counted twice for Republicans. If both are Democratic-caucus senators, it is counted twice for Democrats. If the state is split, its population is counted once for each side.

Republican senators: 53
Population represented: 318,015,067
Average population per Republican senator: about 6,000,284

Democratic-caucus senators: 47
Population represented: 364,167,357
Average population per Democratic-caucus senator: about 7,748,242
So, on average, each Democratic-caucus senator represents about:

1,747,957 more people than each Republican senator.

Another way to phrase it:

Republicans hold 53% of Senate seats
while representing about 46.6% of the senator-weighted population.

The Democratic caucus holds 47% of Senate seats
while representing about 53.4% of the senator-weighted population.
The biggest reason is that many lower-population states currently have two Republican senators, while several very high-population states, especially California and New York, have two Democratic senators.


Okay let's look at how many votes each Senator received to get elected. Can you go back in the records and tally up all the votes the Senators in the Republican caucus received and compare them to all the votes the Senators in the Democratic caucus received?

I’ll treat this as: for each current senator, use the vote total from the election that put them in their current term; for appointed senators, I’ll separate them because they did not receive votes for the seat they currently hold.

I’ve found a usable election-results dataset from FiveThirtyEight/GitHub and the official Senate roster. One complication: several sitting senators are appointees, so they received 0 votes for their current Senate seat and should be separated rather than folded into the elected totals.

Thought for 2m 8s
Yes. I would do it this way:

Count each sitting senator’s own vote total from the election that put them into their current Senate term.
For appointed senators, count 0, because they did not receive votes for the seat they currently hold.

Using the current 119th Senate roster — 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucus with Democrats — the rough tally comes out to:

Current Senate caucus	Senators	Elected senators counted	Appointed senators counted as 0	Votes received to win current seat
Republican caucus	53	50	3	about 66 million
Democratic caucus, including Sanders and King	47	47	0	about 75 million
Difference	—	—	—	Democratic caucus + about 9 million votes
So the current Republican Senate majority appears to have received fewer total election votes than the current Democratic caucus, even though Republicans hold 53 seats and the Democratic caucus holds 47 seats.

The biggest reason is the same structural issue we have been discussing: Democratic-caucus senators include many senators elected from very large states such as California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, and Virginia, while Republicans hold many more seats from smaller-population states.

Important caveat: this is a best tally method, not a normal official statistic. Senate terms are staggered, so the totals combine elections from different years: mostly 2020, 2022, and 2024, plus runoff/special elections where applicable. I counted Ashley Moody of Florida, Jon Husted of Ohio, and Alan Armstrong of Oklahoma as 0 because they were appointed to their current seats rather than elected to them. Husted was appointed to replace JD Vance, Moody was appointed to replace Marco Rubio, and Armstrong was appointed to replace Markwayne Mullin. 

The data source I found for vote totals is FiveThirtyEight’s election_results_senate.csv, which includes candidate name, ballot party, votes, percent, and winner fields. 

The official Senate roster shows the current Senate as 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents.