Climate change does not care if a state is red or blue; it will wreck its havoc all the same. Climate change-fueled forest fires burned in California (blue), Oregon (blue), and Washington (blue) throughout September 2020 while Hurricane Sally pummeled the Georgia (red) and Alabama (red) coastlines and Tropical Storm Beta bashed the coast of Texas (red). Although climate change, which amplifies wildfires and hurricanes, is an equal opportunity offender, the federal response under the current administration does not appear to be color blind. A study from BMJ Global Health found that the federal response to Hurricane Irma (Florida, red) and Hurricane Harvey (Texas, red) was faster and more generous in terms of staff and funding than its response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. (Puerto Rico is not assigned electoral votes for the presidential election).

Alabama, Texas, Georgia and Florida are red states or states with Republican governments, and they rely on tourism and their coastal regions, both of which could be destroyed by climate disasters, to power their economies. Yet, President Trump, the zeitgeist of the Republican Party, denies the science of climate change, “…our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice,” rendering climate change denial as part of the Republican identity. Under the Electoral College System, there is no political incentive for a Republican candidate to address climate change-caused coastal destruction in red states, which seems counterintuitive to maintaining the Gulf States’ fiscal health, because red states by definition typically vote Republican in presidential elections. Similarly, because California and New York (battered by Hurricane Sandy) are firmly blue, there is no political enticement for a presidential candidate to win over climate-concerned Republicans living there even though California is the most populous state and New York is the fourth most populous. According to the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of American adults think the federal government is doing too little to combat the negative effects of global climate change, including fifty-two percent of millennial and younger Republicans. The climate, environmental and fossil fuel policies enacted by the current administration do not reflect the views of the majority Americans. The current administration was elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote.

Presidential candidates, seeing the states in terms of red or blue, focus on winning swing states’ electoral votes because the existence of the Electoral College incentivizes them to do so. It would be healthier for the country if national politicians stopped focusing on the Electoral College numbers game and built coalitions based on shared interests. If the president were chosen by popular vote instead of by the Electoral College, Republican candidates would need to court the large number of Republican voters in both red and blue states dramatically affected by climate change. Any candidate would need to move climate change to the forefront of policy agenda to woo millennial and Gen Z voters, who comprise almost 40% of the 2020 electorate and who rank climate change as one of their top concerns. Because renewable industries employ lots of people in red states, supporting renewable industries is less politically divisive. On a practical level, it would be healthier for the nation because national candidates would need to build consensus around issues rather than target certain voters in specific swing states. They would be accountable to voters for policies which reflect the will of a majority of voters. Climate change could be the issue which galvanizes a push to abolish the Electoral College.

.