Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did the 2024 electoral college votes compare to the 2020 election?
Executive Summary
The 2024 Electoral College preserved the constitutionally fixed total of 538 electors, but reapportionment following the 2020 Census shifted allocations so that 13 states saw changes in their Electoral College votes: seven states gained votes and six lost votes, altering the balance of electoral power at the margins [1] [2]. These changes do not change the 270-vote threshold needed to win the presidency, but they reweight influence among states—larger states remain dominant while some fast-growing states increased their electoral leverage for the 2024 contest [3] [2].
1. How population shifts rewired the map and why it mattered to 2024 outcomes
Reapportionment after the 2020 Census redistributed House seats, and therefore Electoral College votes, based on population changes recorded by the Census; this produced gains for seven states and losses for six, reflecting domestic migration and differing growth rates across regions [1] [2]. The changes were finalized before the 2024 election, meaning campaigns adjusted their strategies to reflect new arithmetic: states that gained votes became marginally more attractive targets, while states that lost votes slightly reduced their strategic weight. Observers noted that these shifts were incremental rather than transformative, with no change to the Electoral College total of 538, preserving the 270 majority requirement [3].
2. Which states moved the needle — winners and losers of reapportionment
The reapportionment list published in 2024 identified specific states that gained additional electoral votes due to population growth and those that lost votes due to slower growth or relative decline; the reporting consistently cites a total of 13 states with changed allocations [1] [2]. Politically, states that gained were often in the South and West where population growth accelerated, while some Midwestern and Northeastern states experienced declines. The margin of change for most affected states was one or two electoral votes, so the practical effect was to nudge, not overturn, preexisting battleground maps, forcing campaigns to slightly recalibrate resource allocation rather than fundamentally rewrite their paths to 270 [2].
3. Why the total remained 538 and the threshold stayed at 270
Constitutional allocation ties each state’s electoral votes to its congressional representation—Senate seats plus House seats—so House reapportionment after the Census is the channel through which electoral votes change. The total of 538 electors is fixed by the combination of 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 3 electors for the District of Columbia; reapportionment only reallocates the 435 House-based electoral pieces among states [3]. As a result, while state counts shifted, the 270 majority requirement remained unchanged, ensuring continuity in the formal mechanics of victory despite demographic-driven redistributions [2].
4. How analysts viewed the practical political impact on the 2024 race
Commentators and scholars assessing the 2024 map emphasized that small shifts in electoral votes rarely flip the overall outcome by themselves; the changes tend to amplify existing trends—making already-competitive states slightly more or less valuable rather than creating new battlegrounds overnight [2]. Analysts cited by reporting in late 2024 noted that while some fast-growing states gained influence, the decisive contests still clustered in a familiar set of competitive states. The consensus in contemporary analysis was that reapportionment influenced campaign tactics and marginal resource deployment more than it directly determined the election winner [2].
5. Timeline and sources: what was reported and when
Public reporting on reapportionment effects clustered around late 2024, with accessible summaries published in September and October reviewing which states gained or lost electoral votes and explaining the census-driven mechanism behind those changes [1] [2]. The detailed state-by-state electoral vote list for 2024 was circulated by November 2024, reiterating the unchanged total of 538 and the role of population shifts in reallocating the 435 House-linked electors. These contemporaneous pieces served as primary references for campaign decisions leading into the 2024 general election [3].
6. Caveats and considerations frequently omitted from headlines
Coverage often highlights the headline numbers—how many states gained or lost votes—without emphasizing that most changes were single-seat adjustments, meaning their electoral impact is marginal unless several such shifts align for one candidate’s advantage [1]. Reporting also varies in assessing long-term trends: some analyses portray gains for Sun Belt states as durable shifts, while others caution that short-term migration patterns or census counting issues can distort long-term projections. Readers should note that reapportionment is a blunt instrument that reflects census timing and methodology as much as political migration trends [2].
7. Bottom line on 2024 vs. 2020 Electoral College comparison
Compared with 2020, the 2024 Electoral College preserved the same total of 538 electors but redistributed those electors among states after the 2020 Census, producing changes in 13 states—seven net gainers and six net losers—creating modest shifts in state influence without altering the 270-vote victory threshold or overturning established battleground dynamics. The net practical effect was to nudge campaign strategies and marginal state importance rather than to fundamentally change the map of presidential prospects going into the 2024 election [1] [3].