This formula can be used for other elections as well, and also to predict future elections based on current trends or on predictions based on polls asking for a future vote.
This is the formula I've used: 100/margin from popular vote*number of EVs
This formula takes two factors into account; the importance of a state based on its strenght as in population or number of EVs and also the importance of a state based on how far it was in percentage from the actual popular vote. Of course, here I could have used the tipping point state as well, but I opted out of it, since that is something that varies heavily from election to election and is, to a substantial degree, influences by randomness and noise. The popular vote is much more stable than the tipping point, since it take all 50 + D.C. states into account.
So here's the list of the most important states in the 2012 election based on significance for the electoral outcome:
As we can see, using this formula, which is much broader than just figuring out which states will be or was the closest ones to the actual popular vote or to the tipping point, big, populous states get a lot more prominence. Both Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are regarded as more important than the smaller state of Colorado (even as it has an impressive 9 EVs). Even more interestingly though, the state of California makes a huge jump and actually places itself in a very strong 8th place of importance. Imagine if the Republican party could regain some strenght with latinos and other minorities and actually make California more of a competitive state again. California would have closed the deal for Republicans just like Texas would do the same for Democrats. Republican presidential candidates would have won every single election where they would held on to California. Texas figures at a 14th place on the list, while Illinois - which trended Republican in 2012 - comes just after Texas on 15th place. The big state of Georgia is ranked 16th, the even bigger New York at 17th, while Arizona doesn't make a stronger bid than 20th place for now. However Arizona will probably be quite a bit higher than that on a similar list of importance after the 2016 election though. Anyone disagree on that?
What are the lessons learned from a list like this? Should campaigns pay more attention, efforts, strategy, rhetoric, money and advertisement on big states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, and much less so on smaller states like New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa?
Nice algorithm. Republicans could solve just about every problem that they have in winning a majority if they could make California and New York competitive by forcing Democrats to run more expensive nationwide campaigns. Of course that is like saying that Minnesota would be a great place for outside swimming in January if it weren't so d@mned cold in the winter.
Spending money on California or New York makes about as much sense as someone like me (who doesn't have any fascination with the sort of speed that entices state troopers to pull me over) buying a Ferrari. The best that Republicans could do is to try to allocate those states' electoral votes by Congressional district and pick off about 35 electoral votes.
Reality still trumps algorithms like yours. Maybe Al Gore would have been wiser to go after the electoral votes of Nevada or New Hampshire than those of Florida in 2000.
