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."

Comments

Thanks from the reminder

[elrous0]

"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.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[elrous0]

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

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[Sique]

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.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[Beefaroni]

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.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[scubamage]

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.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[Frosty Piss]

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

What makes you think Bush didn't?

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[jmoloug1]

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:Thanks from the reminder

[badasscat]

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!

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[ghostunit]

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.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[jollyreaper]

FDR tried and failed to fix the 1930s recession..... it ultimately took a world war to bring-back full employment. Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.

Obama faces what FDR faced, and Obama's not going to be any more successful. (Unless a war saves him.)

Why is it we always praise wars for bringing full employment? I hate to use the cheesedick "war on x" phrases but seriously, what if we were literally do pull out all the stops and mobilize the population on the scale of total war but make the enemy be shoddy infrastructure or crappy housing or something. Instead of marshaling the entire industrial might of the nation towards turning out bombers and tanks, why not treat the whole war as a massive public works project? Make the government the employer of last resort. "If private industry cannot provide work for our good citizens, the government will employ them in something as close to their profession as possible, working towards the public good." It's unemployment benefits that don't keep you out of work and gives the government a tangible return for the money. When the economy picks up, the private sector can start hiring the workers back.

We've been cutting back on investing in infrastructure for decades, it'd be good to put some money back into our country again. Set a goal of getting us off fossil fuels over the next two decades, put government labs to work on seriously making a go of fusion power, green living, reshape our cities to be less energy intensive.

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[Reality Master 101]

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:Thanks from the reminder

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:Thanks from the reminder

[orcus]

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.

Never changes

[rodrigoandrade]

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.

Re:How about

[electrictroy]

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

[rthille]

I'm turning 41 in a week, and this is the 2nd election I listened to...even in 2000, while I 'listened' enough to make up my mind, I didn't think politics was really important. Even the Florida recount didn't seem to matter that much to me, I figured "how much more then the other one can one of these bozos screw things up?" After 9/11 and the other insane government fuckups of the first Bush administration, I got more involved. I figured there'd be no way 2004 would re-elect Bush, so I didn't donate too much or work too hard. Sure Kerry was wooden, but after the first debate my vote changed from "Anyone but Bush" to "Kerry, the guy who could articulate an intelligent position" (even if he could ramble on for days :)

Now in 2008 I'm working in a local campaign, donating money to Obama and Al Franken.

For an interesting picture about how much having the wrong guy at the top matters, read 'State of Denial'.

In 2000, 1 vote would have been enough...

[mbone]

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

Re:How about

[AVee]

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.

Marketing is an Engineering Problem

[Speare]

I have said in the past (since before 2000) that the very strong trend toward fifty-fifty splits between rivals only proves that Marketing is now an Engineering Problem.

To explain: all endeavors start as artforms, like "the tuning of these newfangled carburetors is a bit of a black art." Then you understand the general system well enough to call it a science, "we have found that if we measure the fuel mixture, we maximize combustion." Once the system is known very well, it is an engineering problem: "an electronic system monitors the mixture and adjusts for different conditions on the fly."

Just as the cola wars are in a well-settled detente, the business of national politics is a marketing endeavor. Whether you're Demopublican or Replicratic, whether you're a Preservative or a Libertine, your party system will simply apply the art, nee, the science, nee, the engineering methodology to ensure the candidates do the best they can. Of course, both sides have effectively infinite resources so the marketing comes out equal, and the course of history witnesses Gore/Bush 2000, too many 5-4 decisions to count, a roughly 50-51 Senate, and a dynamic but well-balanced electoral college.

We seem to be deadlocked into a 50%/50% world, regardless of the actual merits. Marketing is simply engineering the "choices" we have, and equally effectively on "both" sides of just about every political issue.

Re:How about

[mbone]

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.

Designed that way

[T.E.D.]

A "feature" (probably unintended) of the design of the Electoral College system is that most elections look like more of a blowout than they were. In theory, if someone manages to consistently get 50.5% in every state, they could win every state and the public will be told the next morning about the victor's huge landslide victory.

That's why after the 2000 election the Reps floated around those red state/blue state US maps with such glee. It made a squeaker look like a huge victory. (For a better picture, see the University of Michagan , which use some cartiographical tricks to adjust for population).
A better illustration are Regan's victories. Everyone knows Regan clobbered Carter and Mondale, right? Well, the true answer is not really, and sorta respectively. The electoral college turned his %50.7 victory in 1980 into a %86 state victory, and his %58.8 victory in 1984 into a %94 state victory.

It has been argued that this effect is actually good for the country, as it gives presidents more legitimacy from their elections.

Re:How about

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Re:How about

[roystgnr]

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/results/preset-v4.html

If a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots was undertaken using the standards that each county's election officials have said they would use in a recount.

Winner: Al Gore, by 171 votes

neither has any facts to sustain it.

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they don't exist.