Slashdot Log In
How Close Were US Presidential Elections?
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 26, 2008 08:15 AM
from the squeakier-than-you-think dept.
from the squeakier-than-you-think dept.
Mike Sheppard writes "I'm a graduate student in Statistics at Michigan State University and spent some time analyzing past US presidential elections to determine how close they truly were. The mathematical procedures of Linear Programming and 0-1 Integer Programming were used to find the optimal solution to the question: 'What is the smallest number of total votes that need to be switched from one candidate to another, and from which states, to affect the outcome of the election?' Because of the way the popular and electoral votes interact, the outcome of the analysis had some surprising and intriguing results. For example, in 2004, 57,787 votes would have given us President Kerry; and in 2000, 269 votes would have given us President Gore. In all there have been 12 US Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the election would have been different."
Related Stories
Submission: How close were Presidential Elections? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
"269 votes would have given us President Gore"
And eight years of being reminded of that sad fact can take a toll on a man's soul that can't be quantified.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still mad at the Republicans for not running McCain back in 2000. I think we'd be in a MUCH different situation with either Gore or McCain - that's before McCain was taken over by that pod person that's occupying his body now.
*GRMUBLING* Passing over Christine Whitman for that dingbat from Alaska....
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Funny)
Has or is?
Parent
'Smallest number of votes' is misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, 289 is the _smallest_ number of voters that could be switched to change the result of the election. But that gives a misleading picture of how close it was. You should also consider the largest number of voters that could switch without changing the result: that is several million votes (for example, Texas voted for Bush; switch 24.999% of the votes Texas cast to Bush to Gore, and the result does not change). In other words huge numbers of people (outside Florida and other swing states) could have decided to vote for Gore (or Nader) instead of Bush and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference.
Perhaps the fairest measure of the closeness of an election is: what is the smallest number N of votes such that if you picked N individual votes at random across the whole country and flipped them, there is more than a 50% probability that the result would change?
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
the Dems seized control of the Congress in 2006 and could have cut off funding - we are still in Iraq
I am so SICK of people pointing to the Democrats in congress and complaining that they alone have not turned things around.
People have to remember that it takes a 2/3 majority to make a bill VETO proof - and with the very slim majority the Democrats have in
congress currently, they need support from Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans are in virtual lockstep with the current administration
so of course they opposed the Democrats every chance they get - and then laugh at them for not being able to change things.
Until the people either elect a Democratic 2/3 majority and/or a Democratic President, things are not going to change.
Personally, I would prefer a congress controlled (2/3's) by one party, and the administration controlled by the opposing.
In that situation, the two sides would HAVE to work together - and we'd have true checks and balances.
(Ok - so maybe not a 2/3's - but close - so the majority party in congress could not simply ignore the president)
Having congress in perfect lockstep with the president (circa pre-2006) allows government to run TOO efficiently - and efficient governments
tend to run roughshod over the populace.
Oh - and it is also not helpful that a lot of people have been deluded that if you are not for the war - then you are anti-american.
I believe the best way to support our troops (a tired cliche that means whatever the person saying it wants it to) is to bring them home safe NOW and let the cesspool fend for itself.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that, going back to the way things were supposed to be (wars requiring a Declaration of War from Congress), rather than the President simply being able to jump on a plane and invade any country he wants under false pretenses.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was this was a huge game of chicken against a player who is proven to be extremely reckless. There's a good chance that Bush would simply have attempted to muddle through, counting on the inevitable disaster to get Congress to open the purse strings.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Gore would have known that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.
What makes you think Bush didn't?
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.
Nice theory, except we weren't attacked until the end of 1941. Most people were opposed to the war before then while FDR was actively trying to get us into the war.
Further, as for the theory that Obama will be hated in four years because he can't fix it, why was FDR reelected continuously through the depression which he allegedly couldn't/didn't fix?
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Interesting)
FDR tried and failed to fix the 1930s recession..... it ultimately took a world war to bring-back full employment. Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.
Obama faces what FDR faced, and Obama's not going to be any more successful. (Unless a war saves him.)
Why is it we always praise wars for bringing full employment? I hate to use the cheesedick "war on x" phrases but seriously, what if we were literally do pull out all the stops and mobilize the population on the scale of total war but make the enemy be shoddy infrastructure or crappy housing or something. Instead of marshaling the entire industrial might of the nation towards turning out bombers and tanks, why not treat the whole war as a massive public works project? Make the government the employer of last resort. "If private industry cannot provide work for our good citizens, the government will employ them in something as close to their profession as possible, working towards the public good." It's unemployment benefits that don't keep you out of work and gives the government a tangible return for the money. When the economy picks up, the private sector can start hiring the workers back.
We've been cutting back on investing in infrastructure for decades, it'd be good to put some money back into our country again. Set a goal of getting us off fossil fuels over the next two decades, put government labs to work on seriously making a go of fusion power, green living, reshape our cities to be less energy intensive.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
We know his actions, and that is the true measure of a man. GWB, while possibly a nice guy, has done many many evil things.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you see, there's this thing about military action: it's not all the same. It tends to actually matter who you attack, at what scale, with what goal, and with what strategy.
It is very possible that another leader would fuck up spectacularly too, but I have to believe that _most_ leaders would at least go after someone who actually had something to do with the attack.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
There is this thing called Phyrric victory [wikipedia.org]. Spending U.S.$ 1.5 trillion to turn one of the most corrupt states of the world into one of the most corrupt states of the world, increasing at the same time the number of political motivated killings from an average of 10,000 per year to 25,000 per year, moving from a pretty secular and multi religious state into a very fundamentalistic islamic one... technically it was a victory, yes.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party. Either way, we've paved the path for fundamentalists to take over yet another major region with our manifest destiny pompous attitude. When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Apparently you're not aware of how the US military, especially the Marine Corp, operates. They're job is to kill people and break things. They don't discriminate, they're equal-opportunity. When it comes to anyone, fundamentalists or secularists, taking up arms against them it's "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"!
You make it sound like Iran in the 50's or something. Its not like we led a coup against a secularist leader who dared to nationalize their nation's oil...
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party.
Yes, and every other country and people throughout history has done bad things to other people and countries, especially if you're looking at it from the losing side. That's human nature. Life, the world, and the people in it generally aren't fair. Countries change allies, make new friends and new enemies. Interests shift. The US and Russia were allies in WW2.
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China? Maybe the US isn't all sweetness and light and kumbaya, but trust me...it could be much worse! Could it be better? Sure. But let's try to have a little perspective here, although I know that US-bashing is the cool thing to do, especially here.
Yeah, I know this will get modded to extinction for violating the group-think and group-hate. Someone has to say it though, and I've got the karma.
Cheers!
Strat
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
What the Iraq invasion was a campaign to establish a sphere of influence that would secure usa economical and geopolitical interests in the region.
Years later and the usa has not only failed at that but (and this is what's killing you) in the process shown its true colors to the whole world. The fall of the dollar, the collapsing economy, the conflict with Russia, that's just the beginning. The tide is turning, the world is starting to realize that "the world's only superpower" is more like a paper tiger and just as inertia pushed the usa forward despite the arrogance and ineptitude it's shown these last years, it will also send it crashing rock-bottom now that it has begun its fall.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the moderation for "+1, Depressing"?
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Funny)
He didn't say worse, just not better which can mean about the same. Instead of being angry about invading Iraq, we might all be upset about Gore not being aggressive enough, Al Qaeda is still running free with a free run of south Asia, and maybe even managed to land a few more attacks on US soil. Then who knows what sort of cowboy war hawk we would have elected in 2004.
Sure, you might lose some of Bush's failures if he hadn't been the sitting president on Sept. 11, 2001, but you also might not have some of his successes.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Iraq is that the war was/is based on lies. Lies about WMD, about ties to Al Quaeda, lies about oil and more. The problem is Bush lied to the people and has used those lies to line the pockets of corporate friends at the expense of the American public's financial well being and the Iraqi people's lives and well being. Maybe Iraq will become a better country in the future, but this mess has been about as poorly handled as it could have been at the executive level.
I believe (but can not know) that Gore would have focused on the real issue in Afghanistan. I believe Gore would have focused on reducing national debt, not increasing it. I believe we would mostly be better off if Gore had been elected. All except Gore and many of the wealthiest Americans.
InnerWeb
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to fan psychology.
Because your candidate was terrible and you were told how terrible he would be before you voted for him. You are now partially responsible for his actions. So logically the other candidate had to have been equally bad.
In the 2000 race Bush was already known bad, even terrible, a hypocrite extraordinaire. Gore was known to be BORING. These are not the same. While the Neocons waged their standard slimy smear campaign the Dems sat there and turned the other cheek. Good God, how do you lose against a cocaine junkie? These days Neocons and stupid people still believe the lies.. AL Gore said he invented the internet!
TLDR: Just because you supported the worst president in history doesn't mean that other guy was just as bad. E.G. you liked the guy who has killed more than a million innocent people VS that peace prize winner guy.
Parent
Re:Vin Diesel Opines (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bet you a nickel that someone else wrote that line.
Nope, that is why he and all the other Hollywood elite get paid so much. They just turn on the cameras, say "Action" and wait for them to come up with amazing plot lines and quotes that will be remembered for ages.
I vaguely remember a strike that happened just recently. I think it was called the actors strike or something similar. Anyway, they said they needed a break from coming up with so many good lines. TV sucked for a few months while they took some time off and regrouped.
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
What Gore has done in the past eight years scares me even more than what Bush has done.
(spit-take)
What planet are you living on? Do you actually read newspapers or anything? If an unnecessary war wasn't enough, then Gitmo, the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus, rampant cronyism and corruption, then a $700 billion bailout for an economy that's been run into the ground doesn't phase you?
Yeah, what Gore has done over the past eight years is MUCH worse. We can't have people actually be aware of global warming!
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
then a $700 billion bailout for an economy that's been run into the ground doesn't phase you?
Yes, Bush has sucked, but I hate to break it to you: It was Clinton/GORE that enacted the policy that destroyed the economy. They're the ones that pushed for the looser mortgage standards so that "poor people could afford to buy a house". In fact, the Republicans tried several times to tighten things up during the last eight years, but were blocked primarily by Democrats. If Gore had been President, certainly nothing would have changed on this particular score. It was his own policy, after all.
Not to say I don't blame Bush for the crisis, by the way (see my recent posts on this exact subject -- Bush had the responsibility to see this coming and deal with it).
Parent
You don`t understand corporate finance. (Score:5, Informative)
But yes,yes, keep blaming Clinton. It's much easier.
Parent
Fact Check (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_Military_Service_Controversy#Document_release [wikipedia.org]
On May 20, 2005 John Kerry signed a 'Standard Form 180', releasing pretty much every possible relevant document, including all his military service, reserve and discharge records, as well as his medical records, to the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times.
-Chris
Parent
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Constrained Optimization Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Large constrained optimization problems get solved all the time, algorithms like simplex scale nicely and the computer doesn't care that you've thrown hundreds of variables at it (well, it bogs down a bit, especially with non-linearities).
I've been paid rather well to consult on problems like this. The biggest they thought there was something wrong with their solver, but it was just bad data. The people collecting the data had been given inconsistent instructions, things like "measure at the beginning of the year" vs "measure halfway through the year". Garbage in, garbage out, and no fancy algorithm is going to save you.
Parent
Never changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe these small margins indicate why things never change in politics. Nice work.
Re:Never changes (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an almost textbook example of optimization theory - assume there's two ice cream booths on a beach [0..1] with a uniform distribution of guests, now the optimal for the beach guests would having them at 1/4 and 3/4, but then each could steal customers by moving towards the center. End result you got two booths right next to each other in the middle, each serving half the guests. As long as any other booths can't enter (winner takes it all-system) that situation is stable. Any disturbance like the guest moving over to one side of the beach because it got better sun in the afternoon and the dividing line will move, again leaving half on each side. If you want clearer objective proof that having 40% of the votes it useless in the US, this is it. The politicians must redefine their politics so they're fighting for the majority, rather than stay true to anything.
Parent
Importance of protecting the process (Score:5, Interesting)
This shows how easy it would be to swing the election should one hack the voting in a few districts. The analysis can be used to show the regions to focus on.
This shows the importance of maintaining an open and audit able process if the system is to be protected from manipulation.
It also shows the importance of every vote and in protecting the rights of all to be able to cast their vote.
Some... (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2000, 1 vote would have been enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
there were only 9 votes that counted, and switching 1 would have done it.
How often does the outcome matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that so many elections are so close seems to indicate that 'the people' don't have a strong preference for one candidate over another. Why? Because their policies are often nearly indistinguishable.
Look at this election for instance. Even on the issue of withdrawing from Iraq, both candidates plan to withdraw troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground, and send them into Iraq. Neither of these candidates are going to stand up against this upcoming bank welfare bill. Even the candidate for "change" has voted with the Bush administration to protect telecoms from consequences for their illegal spying on Americans. And yet, people seem to think that this is "the most important election of our time". Bullshit.
So yeah 1% might swing the outcome of an election, but it's going to take more than 1% to cause any sort of real change. You might as well flip a coin, you'll get a 50/50 split that way too.
Marketing is an Engineering Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I have said in the past (since before 2000) that the very strong trend toward fifty-fifty splits between rivals only proves that Marketing is now an Engineering Problem.
To explain: all endeavors start as artforms, like "the tuning of these newfangled carburetors is a bit of a black art." Then you understand the general system well enough to call it a science, "we have found that if we measure the fuel mixture, we maximize combustion." Once the system is known very well, it is an engineering problem: "an electronic system monitors the mixture and adjusts for different conditions on the fly."
Just as the cola wars are in a well-settled detente, the business of national politics is a marketing endeavor. Whether you're Demopublican or Replicratic, whether you're a Preservative or a Libertine, your party system will simply apply the art, nee, the science, nee, the engineering methodology to ensure the candidates do the best they can. Of course, both sides have effectively infinite resources so the marketing comes out equal, and the course of history witnesses Gore/Bush 2000, too many 5-4 decisions to count, a roughly 50-51 Senate, and a dynamic but well-balanced electoral college.
We seem to be deadlocked into a 50%/50% world, regardless of the actual merits. Marketing is simply engineering the "choices" we have, and equally effectively on "both" sides of just about every political issue.
Designed that way (Score:5, Interesting)
A "feature" (probably unintended) of the design of the Electoral College system is that most elections look like more of a blowout than they were. In theory, if someone manages to consistently get 50.5% in every state, they could win every state and the public will be told the next morning about the victor's huge landslide victory.
That's why after the 2000 election the Reps floated around those red state/blue state US maps with such glee. It made a squeaker look like a huge victory. (For a better picture, see the University of Michagan [umich.edu] , which use some cartiographical tricks to adjust for population).
A better illustration are Regan's victories. Everyone knows Regan clobbered Carter and Mondale, right? Well, the true answer is not really, and sorta respectively. The electoral college turned his %50.7 victory in 1980 into a %86 state victory, and his %58.8 victory in 1984 into a %94 state victory.
It has been argued that this effect is actually good for the country, as it gives presidents more legitimacy from their elections.
What are the odds these were random? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, MANY recounts were performed. One by USA Today, one by Washington Post, another by Wall street Journal, and so on.
They all agreed that Gore simply did not have enough ballots according to Florida legal standards (where hanging chads are called null votes). They all agreed that Bush won Florida State.
Parent
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
First, they weren't official recounts.
Second, they showed that if there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush.
It is true that that is not what Al Gore's campaign was asking for, but there it is.
And that is before you get into the whole voter list mess, which undoubtedly rejected thousands of legitimate Democratic voters, but was not a recount issue.
Parent
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/results/preset-v4.html [nytimes.com]
neither has any facts to sustain it.
Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they don't exist.
Parent
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Hanging chad? So the voting technology is so terrible that an elderly person who votes for Gore has a good chance of not pressing hard enough (parkisons, arthritis, weakness is a bitch you know) and thus nullifying their vote. I dont expect this kind of thing to happen in fist world countries. I think its pretty obvious what a hanging chad means. Tossing it out is borderline voting fraud.
Parent
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just it. Ideally, any election would be run by an impartial third party, which is effectively impossible in the highly charged and partisan atmosphere encouraged by our system. I would be much more at ease if another country like Sweden stepped in to control the whole thing, just because theoretically they're less likely to attempt outright subversion of the process.
Or hell, at least someone less partial than one of the candidate's relatives. Fuck, even McDonalds has sweepstakes rules that employees and family members can't win prizes for similar reasons. Are we saying our elections are less important than McDonalds sweepstakes? Maybe not, but our actions sure are.
Parent
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
Go ahead, Republicans, use your mod point! Strike me down! I will only grow more powerful!
More powerful will you grow, hmm, only when the truth you realize: Republican, Democrat, both to the Dark Side have fallen.
Parent
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm turning 41 in a week, and this is the 2nd election I listened to...even in 2000, while I 'listened' enough to make up my mind, I didn't think politics was really important. Even the Florida recount didn't seem to matter that much to me, I figured "how much more then the other one can one of these bozos screw things up?" After 9/11 and the other insane government fuckups of the first Bush administration, I got more involved. I figured there'd be no way 2004 would re-elect Bush, so I didn't donate too much or work too hard. Sure Kerry was wooden, but after the first debate my vote changed from "Anyone but Bush" to "Kerry, the guy who could articulate an intelligent position" (even if he could ramble on for days :)
Now in 2008 I'm working in a local campaign, donating money to Obama and Al Franken.
For an interesting picture about how much having the wrong guy at the top matters, read 'State of Denial'.
Parent
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:5, Insightful)
The "cool kids" will, of course, tell you that everything is the same, everything sucks, and you should give up on trying to make a positive change in any part of your life or any part of your country.
Those people are dead wrong. Thats what they said about Gore and Bush, and I think its pretty obvious that a Gore presidency would have been 100% better for America. Dont give in to mindless peer-pressured apathy.
Parent
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. The fact is that neither of the major candidates represent the people. They represent corporate interests first and foremost. Voting for one or the other simply continues the mandate of the corporate oligarchy. The two party system is an illusion, there is one corporate party with an absolute stranglehold on American politics. If we ever want to restore freedom to this country, we have to break it, and voting 3rd party is the only way short of revolution.
Don't blame Nader voters for following their conscience. Blame Gore for not representing policies they could vote for in good conscience.
Parent
Re:What's the point of the Electoral College? (Score:5, Informative)
In U.S. Presidential elections, you are voting for electors, not really candidates. In most states, it is the political parties that decide who get to be electors... and usually send a list of electors to the top state election official prior to the election who will represent the candidate of that party when the election is finally held.
Having been involved with major party politics on the state level (as a convention delegate) I've had the somewhat rare privilege of directly voting on who would get onto that list and help select the actual electors to the electoral college. They are usually strongly loyal political leaders... such as governors or county party chairmen who have been serving for decades or longer.
Each state can have as many electors as they have senators and representatives in the U.S. Congress... although it should be noted that all federal officers... including senators and representatives... are constitutionally prohibited from participating as electors.
Also, once the electors have been selected and elected, they are free to vote for whomever they want... for both President and Vice-President, which are treated as two separate voting opportunities. It is possible to vote for two people (pres/vp) of different political parties... and in fact that has happened in the past. An elector in Texas voted for George H.W. Bush as president and Lloyd Bentson (a democrat) as his vp candidate in the 1988 Presidential election. In a couple of cases, the elector screwed up and got the presidential candidate and the vp candidate messed up... casting the vp candidate as a vote for the president and the presidential candidate as the vp. So far none of these "faithless" electors have made a significant impact on the actual election in terms of changing who the victor of the election may be.
Assuming that something tragically happens between the nomination of the candidate and when the electors actually vote... especially if there is a death of a candidate after the election (natural death or assassination), the electors also serve as a line of authority to help decide who is going to become President without having to go through the whole process of selecting a candidates all over again and another national election. This did happen in the 1872 election with the Democratic candidate.
I should also note that it is up to each state to decide how it selects its electors (in terms of from what parties or how they are selected). Most states do a "winner-take-all" system where the candidate with the most votes gets all of the electors for that state. This is not something in the U.S. Constitution, but rather a custom that has developed over the years... and is not universally followed either. Maine and Nebraska both have a split system where each congressional district votes independently for electors, and then the two "senatorial" electors are decided by the state-wide vote.
I hope this isn't putting up more info than you were asking for. Individual votes from ordinary voters do make a difference... in fact a huge difference.
Parent