Slashdot Mirror
How Close Were US Presidential Elections?
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."
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.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Gore would have known that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
Clinton / Gore were banging the WMD drum loudly all through the 1990's. Iraq's invasion was going to happen since Serbia was seen as a victory. in 1998 Clinton signed a bill to free Iraq. the argument was never over the war but over what party was going to skim off the top of the war funding in my opinion. the Dems seized control of the Congress in 2006 and could have cut off funding - we are still in Iraq. you do not maintain air supremacy over a nation for 12 years (no fly zone enforcement) and not invade. we strangled Saddam economically, softened him up and rolled his forces, and tossed him onto the ash heap of history. anybody that has any war history under their belts knows there will always be an insurgency to put down after a nation goes down - see also the Werewolves in post WWII Germany. the reason they were defeated so easily is that era of warfare did not have its hands bound by political correctness, instantaneous digital media coverage, and a bunch of spineless wimps in Congress. Ike suppressed the media, blasted the Nazi remnants out of the hills, and prosecuted any that were involved via military tribunal. it is ugly nasty work, that is why it was called a war.
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.
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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_Military_Service_Controversy#Document_release
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
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/results/preset-v4.html
neither has any facts to sustain it.
Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they don't exist.
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).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
First they burn books, then they burn people.
I suggest you read up on corporate finance because your post indicates a profound misunderstanding of the current economical crisis' ACTUAL source : Deregulation of investmebnt banking. These was lobbied for extensively by two people who'se names you might recognize from the current election cycle : Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Tresury Secretary "Hank" Paulson. Let`s not even go into the Senator`s invovlement in the "Keating 5" savings and loan scandal...
But yes,yes, keep blaming Clinton. It's much easier.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
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.