How Close Were US Presidential Elections? 971
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."
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.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:1, Informative)
I object most vehemently to this characterization. Sarah Palin is one of the most well-spoken, articulate politicians I have ever heard, with a gentle yet incisive humor that deposits the positions of her opponents subtly, and yet surely, in the realm of the absurd.
But you don't need to take my word for it! Thanks to the marvels of teh intertubes, you can judge for yourself [cbsnews.com]!
Re:Importance of protecting the process (Score:4, Informative)
Also shows the effect independent candidates can have. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it shows that if the voting process was direct (i.e. popular vote decides of the outcome) elections would depend on much more people, and in more than in a few keys states.
Of course I am biased for being French, but ever since 1962 we chose our president based on popular vote, and what's best, we have two elections, one with the shitload of "independents" in the mix, and a second one with only the two winners from the first election, which solves the problem of the nasty influence that Ralph Nader and the likes have, while still giving them all the room they deserve in the debate.
Actually in France all candidates get equal air time, which means you'd get to hear Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader speak on TV as much as Barack Obama or that cop from Die Hard, John McClane. God I can't believe we could have that guy from president, that's just too awesome!
Re:2000, volusia county, FL. Al Gore -16000 votes. (Score:0, Informative)
Not quite, 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.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:How about (Score:2, Informative)
Right, and if the Gore campaign had succeeded in changing Florida election law in the middle of the election... blah blah blah.
Don't we have enough problems NOW to deal with NOW?
Re:What are the odds these were random? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In 2000, 1 vote would have been enough... (Score:2, Informative)
"there were only 9 votes that counted, and switching 1 would have done it."
Nope - the 5-4 vote was on continuing the recount. If that had gone the other way, it would have been remanded to the Florida court to figure out a consistent way to do the recount. Given the amount of time that would have taken, the election would have landed in the House of Reps, which was majority Republican at the time.
It may still have gone to Gore, but the 2000 Election Fraud Theory is starting to take on the same aspects of "Lee winning at Gettysburg" - you can game all the variables you want, but in the end it winds up being about whiny, bitter losers.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Linear programming? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry pal, but that is what they teach in high school Algebra I/II classes as a stand-in for analytically solving equations.
Inquiring minds want to know: where the fuck do they teach this [wikipedia.org] in Algebra I/II?
P.S. If you've got some way to analytically solve any constrained optimization problem with 50+ variables, there's probably a long line of people with medals and/or piles of cash to give you.
Re:How about (Score:2, Informative)
How about one (wo)man one vote? As a Dutchman I am flabbergasted by the US election system. That's not to say all is well here - our system of many parties and coalition negotiations means that just about everything get's moderated yet it has brought people such as Wilders in parliament.
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.
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?
Re:How about (Score:3, Informative)
>>>Second, they showed that if there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes
First, there WAS an official recount in Miami-Dade county. Gore just didn't like the result (he lost again). Second, the statewide recount by USA Today, Washington Post, et cetera ALSO confirmed that Gore lost. In fact, he lost by a greater margin than previously - over 1000 votes - since most of rural Florida is Republican.
No matter how you look at it, according to the legal standards, Gore lost Florida.
"Gore won" is an urban legend, and it is as false as the "I woke up in a bathtub without my kidneys" urban legend. Neither has any basis in reality - neither has any facts to sustain it.
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
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.
Re:How often does the outcome matter? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Linear programming? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, linear programming IS basic algerbra, but is best solved with geometry skills. Simpler formulas are being used in 6th and 7th grade math. Basic linear programming problems, like calculating the best sale price for profit based on demand, are math standards used in Algebra I, Geometry, and statiscics classes alike. In some states using circular math, like NY and Connecticut (tiered learning instead of seperating Algebra from Geometry, from Trig, which is simply stupid to do since they're all interdependent!) Linear programming and advanced logic are taught in the second year of high school math (9th or 10th grade).
But actually, it starts much earlier than High School. My wife teaches 3rd grade now in SC, but Linear programming is one of the standards of math she taught a couple years ago when teaching 4th grade. It appears again in the 6th and 8th grade curriculum standards on the state's PACT test.
The wiki article is highly technical, and goes pretty deep into equasion design, but honestly, you've been using this stuff for years, it just wasn't called "programming" and you didn't use function notation... (and it has no relation to writing software)
This is exactly the same as kids that use calculus, doing derivitives and more for optics experiments and when dealing with simple velocity equasions, in basic physics classes in 6th, 8th and 9th grade years before actually finding out it's called "calculus" because if they actually told kids that, they'd refuse the work and parents would lobby the schools not teach that stuff to kids who had not already taken calculs... Honestly, short form derivitives using the 4 shortcut rules is easier than algerbra, and many people believe it should actually be taught FIRST, after basic math skills but before geometry and trig.
Re:1836 election was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
It didn't work, but the strategy was the work of a genius, and gave the Whigs an actual chance of winning the race in a year they really couldn't have won, and shouldn't have been this close to winning.
Van Buren was too popular. He was Jackson's VP (founder of the Democratic Party) who was still revered around the country by those who loved the Jacksonian/Jeffersonian vision for it.(BTW, Van Buren is the only American president not to speak English as his native language, he grew up speaking Dutch).
Anyway, the Whigs had absolutely no platform. Their whole raison d'etre and the reason for the formation of the party was to oppose Jacksonian Democracy. They were not a national party in '36 (and some might say they never became a national party), and the only way to stop the Democrats was the multiple-candidate tactic that they tried.
That tactic was based on lack of information. This of course is the pre-telegraph era, so the Whigs' tactic was plausible. It was thought that most people would not know/care who the candidate in another state was, and would vote for the candidates in their own state. The Whigs ran William Henry Harrison in most states, but ran local heros in states they thought Harrison couldn't win. If the result of an election doesn't give any candidate a majority of the electoral votes, the matter is referred to the House of Reps. Since the Whigs held the Congress, they argued that using this tactic would enable them to elect/select Harrison.
However, once it became known that the party was running other candidates in other states, many Whig voters felt cheated and deserted the party. Of course, that's why it has never been tried again. And in today's world of instant availability of information, it wouldn't work.
Harrison ran against Buren again in '40, and this time he won; only to die about 30 days later in the office. His VP who then became president deserted the Whigs and the party slowly disintegrated (over the issue of slavery) eventually giving rise to Lincoln and the Republican Party.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:2, 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.
>
Wow. Now I understand why my European colleagues make-fun of American schools. ----- The war started in 1939, and FDR used that war to get himself re-elected - "stay with proven leadership during these troubled times". If the war had not happened FDR would have been defeated, because Americans were displeased with the economy and FDR's failure to improve it. (In fact, FDR was so sure he would lose, that he recommended other democrats run instead of himself. FDR was going to abide by the 2-term limit.)
>why was FDR reelected continuously through the depression which he allegedly couldn't/didn't fix?
>
ONE reelection in 1936. One does not a "continuum" make. As for fixing the depression, many many economists have reviewed the records and determined that the U.S. in 1940 was no better off than the U.S. in 1933. FDR's plans accomplished next-to-nothing to end the recession. There was no improvement. That's why he told his Democrat colleagues he was going to step down & let them run instead.
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).
Re:Never changes (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely right. And here's the textbook [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re:Fact Check (Score:4, Informative)
That does not appear to be the case. [boston.com]
The point being that John Kerry could not have been discharged in 1978. By law, he was discharged about 1975. But where is that discharge paper, and why get a new discharge in 1978 from the wrong agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry's_military_service#Honorable_Discharge [wikipedia.org]
Because he was transferred to the reserve in order to become a candidate for Congress, effective January 3, 1970? And was then transferred in 1972 to the standby Reserve? That would seem to make the U.S. Naval Reserve the correct agency...
Would you care to cite any sources for your claims?
-Chris
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Informative)
(1) 1929 was caused by a stock market bubble riding on non-existent money (credit extended to stock buyers). Once people realized the bubble was fake, the whole thing crashed down. The same thing is happening now, except its a housing bubble instead of stock bubble. It's a house of cards built upon money that does not exist (credit extended to home buyers).
(2) If things are not that bad, why has the Fed spent $1 trillion on investment bank bailouts, and requested another $0.7 trillion for mortgage bailouts. Did you know last week the Credit market actually FROZE? Without credit, business can not function. They can't buy parts for manufacture or pay their employees' wages. We are riding on the precipice of another 1929-style crash.
.
No it's not identical, but it's close enough for comparisons, and if 2009 becomes a repeat of 1929, or even half that bad, the next president will have as impossible job as FDR had during his presidency.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:4, Informative)
Even if Gore would have unilaterally invaded Iraq without seeking a world-wide consensus first, do you think that he would have invaded with a woefully inadequately-sized force that could not secure the peace? Do you think he would have disbanded the Iraqi police and military after seizing power, so that you'll have hundreds of thousands of jobless men trained to use weapons? Do you think he would have de-Baathed Iraq so that all the doctors and schoolteachers lost their jobs because you had to swear allegiance to the Baath party in order to have any important job? Do you think he wouldn't have had a plan set up to rebuild Iraq promptly and restore order so that it wouldn't devolve into a clusterfuck of neglect and lawlessness?
I think any sane person fighting a war would have done all of those things. Gore would have; Bush did not. Even assuming everything you said, Bush winning the election was a terrible tragedy for this country.
And there's reason to believe that the narrow gaps in the elections were not mistakes. According to tools we use to monitor the validity of foreign elections, the 2004 election was rigged. [rollingstone.com] It may be the case that 269 votes was NOT the difference after all.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Informative)
I typically like to hear both sides of a debate before making my mind up and I recently came across this movie and your comment reminded me of it so I figured I would share it.
Great Global Warming Swindle, The (2007):
http://moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php [moviesfoundonline.com]
I have my doubts about the science that is being used to support that we are the root cause, that we have the power to change things, or even that it is that serious. I am first to admit, though, that I have no idea. The link above offers some interesting views on global warming. Unfortunately it seems everyone is really zealous about it so there are too many emotions being tossed around and not enough rational conversations with each other to actually accomplish anything I suppose.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:3, Informative)
I'm optimistic about the future. The trick is to get Americans to wake up and realize that an alternative exists. The Campaign for Liberty has just gotten off the ground, but they're already fielding liberty-minded candidates at all levels of government. They have a pretty good vetting process to make sure that these people are genuine, too.
This $700bn bailout has an exceptionally low approval rating from the public (I heard 7% on NPR yesterday). If it passes, it will be a monumental example of how divorced from the public our leaders really are. In this case America will be ripe for change IF and ONLY IF Americans know that (real) change is available.
If you're fed up with the two-party system or even just the career politicians who have been running the place, check out the Campaign for Liberty [campaignforliberty.com]. Tell your friends. Run for office. Educate people. Do something in addition to preaching to the choir. We are at a point in history where we can make a difference, but only if we get off of our asses and do it.
(This is not directed at you, Trifthen, but is a general call to action.)
You don`t understand corporate finance. (Score:5, Informative)
But yes,yes, keep blaming Clinton. It's much easier.
Re:Linear programming? (Score:4, Informative)
People might teach 2D linear programming using geometrical means to some high school but they are decidedly NOT teaching fully blown arbitrary dimension LP with integer constraints like this article is using. Integer programming is an NP-hard problem. I teach this to university seniors.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Informative)
You have to admit, the US loves to look like the good guy though. Ignore the fact that we funnelled millions of dollars to Haliburton every year since the original gulf war to repair Iraq but yet made no effort to check in on them.
Also ignore that most of the destablizing of the middle east is a direct result of the US and UK's interference. We started our love affair after WWI when the IPC and BP forcefully locked in the nations to unreasonable petrol supply deals. As soon as they weren't our mandates anymore... all hell broke loose. Iran nationalized so we took Mossadegh out of the picture, despite him being our ally and a democratically elected secularist. We also formed the Iranian secret police, Savak, who systematically murdered every other secularist and Mossadegh supporter they could get their hands on. Regime change and thousands of innocent people dead. Not as elegant as dropping some gas on a bunch of Kurds, but ultimately it has the exact same effect, does it not? Even worse, this led to the Fundamentalist coup, which we now say hates us - ignoring the fact that we set the stage for it. They want to reason with us, and we stick our noses in the air. That doesn't sound like we're the good guys - it makes us sound just as warmongering and pompous as you try to make our enemies sound.
Just because we try to make our military confrontations and look politically acceptable does not by any fashion make us any less corrupt and warmongering than the other guys. Lets not forget, its hard to call us a civilized nation when we're the only one on earth to drop not one, but two nuclear explosives on a nation - after an extensive firebombing campaign none the less! I mean, how can you make firebombing acceptable when it directly targets civilians? I guess the same way we can drop "precision bombs" with a 1km kill radius in the middle of a residential neighborhood and claim that it only targets 3 or 4 insurgents.
But as I said... I do agree that the US lets some of it trickle down to its citizens' coffers, and I do agree that it usually has its own interests in mind.
Re:Dude, chill. (Score:1, Informative)
It had been tradition since Washington that no President would serve more than two terms, lest they be seen as aspiring to be a king. More than one successful two-termer had stepped down after 8 years instead of violating that tradition. FDR, the egomaniac, did not. It was set into law once he left.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, just counting all of the votes in Florida would have given us President Gore.
Re:Linear programming? (Score:5, Informative)
You have completely misunderstood what the parent is talking about. Linear programming doesn't mean solving systems of linear equations, it means maximizing a target function within a system of linear constraints. There is a way to do this geometrically when there are only two variables, which you might have seen in high school, but that approach doesn't work when there are three variables or more. In that case, you would use the Simplex algorithm. It can be done by hand, but the principle is not even remotely the same, and it is certainly not taught in high school.
check it out (Score:2, Informative)
Re:check it out (Score:2, Informative)
I also like http://www.270towin.com/ [270towin.com]
Click on states and turn them red and blue. You can have your own prediction.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/ [electoral-vote.com]
Is an easy place to get lots of poll data, so you can decide which states are clicked red and blue easy.
btw:
If you follow the poll data for the other 49, ignore the VA&NH poll data and call VA red (reasonable considerring history), and NH red (weak, but not silly)
You can get a tie. 269-269. It's very close right now.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:2, Informative)
So the US media only reports good news?
Are you mad?
Iraq went quiet as soon as it turned around. The US media will report every piece of negative news it can find, it will spin everything it can in a negative light, and it will make up bad news if it can't find any.
Re:Constrained Optimization Problems (Score:3, Informative)