Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Close Were US Presidential Elections?

Posted by kdawson on 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."

33 of 971 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks from the reminder by elrous0 · · 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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Thanks from the reminder by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the election had gone the other way 8 years ago, we wouldn't be in Iraq fighting an unwinnable war.

    2. Re:Thanks from the reminder by Anonymous Coward · · 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....

    3. Re:Thanks from the reminder by diersing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but that doesn't mean the runner up would have done better. When provided with two shitty options, we'll always end up with shit.

    4. Re:Thanks from the reminder by famebait · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    5. Re:Thanks from the reminder by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is this thing called Phyrric victory. 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.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Thanks from the reminder by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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. 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.

    7. Re:Thanks from the reminder by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gore would have known that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.

      What makes you think Bush didn't?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:Thanks from the reminder by badasscat · · 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!

    9. Re:Thanks from the reminder by edmicman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You see, there you go again. You could have the most incredibly insightful thoughts and opinions, but you lose any and all credibility as soon as you use the term "Nobama". It's akin to "Micro$oft" and such....it immediately makes you come across as childish and immature, and I stopped taking you seriously as soon as I read it.

    10. Re:Thanks from the reminder by ghostunit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fool. The Iraq invasion was never a matter of military superiority. Are you implying that it was won because the usa hasn't been invaded or nuked or something since then? ridiculous.

      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.

    11. Re:Thanks from the reminder by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    12. Re:Thanks from the reminder by BlueStrat · · 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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Thanks from the reminder by Hatta · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Thanks from the reminder by innerweb · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    15. Re:Thanks from the reminder by tmosley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think again. All the Democrats had to do was block the spending bills that contained money for Iraq. All that is needed for that is a simple majority, and you can't veto what doesn't get to your desk. Had they done that, it would have FORCED Bush to the table, and they could have FORCED him to withdraw from Iraq.

      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.

    16. Re:Thanks from the reminder by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that simple. True, you need a supermajority in the Senate to do anything against the will of the minority. However, you don't even need a majority to stop something. Cutting off funds for the war falls under the category of stopping.

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Thanks from the reminder by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where's the moderation for "+1, Depressing"?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    18. Re:Thanks from the reminder by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything is the president's fault. Everything. The devastating hurricanes we've experienced in his administration? Yep, Bush caused them. My toilet is broken: that's his fault, too. I haven't mowed my lawn in 3 years. You know why? Bush. I can't even see my truck sitting in my yard, which is currently rusting away. Bush caused that. Our president is so selfish and ignorant, that it even caused my internet connection to be horribly slow around 2:30 every day.

      Not everything is Bush's fault, but a lot is. Bin Laden launching an attack on the U.S. isn't Bush's fault. But failing to watch Bin Laden beforehand is his fault. Failing to catch him afterwards is his fault.

      Sunnis and Shiites hate each other. That's not Bush's fault, but when the administration invades Iraq without an occupation plan or enough forces, dismantles their army, and then ignores the growing insurgency and civil war, that is Bush's fault.

      Hurricane Katrina isn't Bush's fault. Hiring incompetent guys like Brown, and failing to respond to the disaster, that is Bush's fault.

      Afghanistan being a failed state, that's not Bush's fault. But not being able to secure it because you invaded Iraq, that is Bush's fault.

      Bush isn't to blame for everything that's gone wrong in 8 years, but he has a lot to owe up to. That's why he's in the running for the title of Worst President in U.S. History. And finally, it's worth considering that not everything that happens to the U.S. is Bush's fault. But everything that happens to the U.S. is his responsibility. It's just sad that he never seems to have understood that.

  2. How about by whereizben · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If 269 votes had been counted that weren't, and they were for Gore, it all would have been different. This is a good reason to not stop recounts from going forward...

    1. Re:How about by Nobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your math is wrong. 269 votes switched is not the same as not counted, because a switched vote would have both lowered the vote for the Republicans and raised the vote for the Democrats. If it was truly votes not counted, you need to double that number to get the same effect.

    2. Re:How about by AVee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If 269 votes make such a big difference there is a good reason to change the system. Such a small group of people should not have such a big influence on what happens in a country. That is, when you are serious about being a democracy. Really, these are all just symptoms of a bigger problem.

    3. Re:How about by gad_zuki! · · 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.

    4. Re:How about by Trifthen · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
  3. Never changes by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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."

    Maybe these small margins indicate why things never change in politics. Nice work.
  4. Re:99% off-topic question by RandoX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Same thing. Different pair of liars. Vote for the one you dislike the least.

  5. Some... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some would contend (and I have difficulty disagreeing) that, in 2000, 269 votes still wouldn't have given us President Gore - it would have just given us 269 more rejected ballots...

  6. In 2000, 1 vote would have been enough... by mbone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there were only 9 votes that counted, and switching 1 would have done it.

  7. How often does the outcome matter? by Hatta · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. Modern electoral process by spaceman375 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the results of the vote are within statistical error (which is a LOT bigger than 269 votes), the election should be thrown out and run again. Plain science; the kind that politicians will never allow. They'll claim that would be too confusing for most voters. That is, thay'll say we are in the aggregate too stupid. SOME people may be, but most of us aren't. We are, however, too apathetic. The election in 2000 was blatantly rigged, yet the populace just grumbled. I guess I'll move to canada. The US government has been hijacked.

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
  9. Re:99% off-topic question by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. Re:99% off-topic question by Hatta · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. Constrained Optimization Problems by tobiah · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -