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.
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://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.