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."

13 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 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....

    2. 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*
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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!

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.