Our current method of electing the president is, to say it bluntly, unfair. Thanks to laws that allocate Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis, the great majority of Americans are ignored during the election for our country’s highest office. In 2012, all 253 of the campaign events with major party presidential and vice presidential candidates that took place after the Democratic National Convention were in just 12 states. From April 11 through Election Day on November 6, 99.6% of all advertising spending by the major party campaigns and their allies was in just 10 states. 

But in the 2012 election, every state was invested at least in one way – they all had residents who donated to and financed the two major party candidates’ campaigns. Despite this generosity, when it came down to devising their campaign strategies, the candidates did not reciprocate. While the candidates lavished attention on ten lucky battleground states, the remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia, which received a combined 0.4% of campaign advertising, were left as net exporters, donated hundreds of times more money than they received.

The ten biggest net exporters of campaign donations were California, Illinois, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Georgia, Connecticut. Their residents were responsible for 57.2% of all donations to the two campaigns. In return, they received a total of 0.1% of campaign advertising spending during the peak campaign season – that is, $1.70 of advertising spending in their state for every $1,000 they donated.

Meanwhile, the 10 net importers of campaign spending – with Florida, Ohio, and Virginia leading the way – were showered with almost the entirety of national attention during the peak campaign season. Though they received 99.6% of all advertising over that stretch, they were responsible for only 21.6% of all donations to the major party campaigns. Florida alone received 21% of advertising despite being responsible for only 6.1% of donations.

This discrepancy is a clear consequence of the Electoral College winner-take-all system in place in 48 states and the District of Columbia. If the election was decided based on a national popular vote, states could finance in-state campaigning and have activism that stayed within their communities. Instead, states like Massachusetts and Vermont campaign in neighboring New Hampshire, Delaware and New Jersey campaign in Pennsylvania and Maryland and D.C. campaign in Virginia. 

It should come as no surprise then that six of the top 10 net exporting states – Illinois, Maryland, Washington,  New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts – have passed the National Popular Vote (NPV) interstate compact into law. Under the NPV plan, once enough states sign on to represent a majority of the Electoral College (currently 270-538), they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of each individual state. Under this plaln, every vote, in ever corner of the nation, would be valued.

For a full listing of campaign donation vs. campaign spending, see the chart below (net importers of campaign money are bolded).

*Donations statistics from the FEC

*Advertising statistics from Washington Post.

Updated March 3, 2015.