scholarly journals How the Electoral College Influences Campaigns and Policy: The Probability of Being Florida

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 769-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Strömberg
Keyword(s):  
Close Agreement ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Probabilistic Voting ◽  
Forecast Uncertainty ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
College System

This paper analyzes how US presidential candidates should allocate resources across states to maximize the probability of winning the election, by developing and estimating a probabilistic-voting model of political competition under the Electoral College system. Actual campaigns act in close agreement with the model. There is a 0.9 correlation between equilibrium and actual presidential campaign visits across states, both in 2000 and 2004. The paper shows how presidential candidate attention is affected by the states' number of electoral votes, forecasted state-election outcomes, and forecast uncertainty. It also analyzes the effects of a direct national popular vote for president. (JEL D72)

The Changing Structure of Party Identification

1985 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Laurily K. Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Party Identification ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Jimmy Carter ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Majority Party ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Democratic Presidential Candidate

However one wishes to characterize Walter Mondale's campaign for the presidency, his loss was only the latest in a series of Democratic presidential candidate defeats beginning in 1968. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey got 43 percent of the popular vote. In 1972, George McGovem received 38 percent of the popular vote. And in both 1980 and 1984, the Democratic presidential tickets got 41 percent of the popular vote. Only in 1976 did a Democratic presidential candidate receive a (very slim) majority of the popular votes cast. Indeed, Democratic presidential candidates have received only 42 percent of the total votes cast between 1968 and 1984.Although Democratic presidential candidates have not been faring well for 16 years, party identification has remained about the same—with the Democrats as the majority party. Until 1984. And that is what makes the 1984 election interesting, for in this election the voters finally seemed to change their party identification to correspond with what now appears to be their habit of electing Republican presidents.In 1980, when Jimmy Carter received the same proportion of the total votes cast as did Walter Mondale in 1984, self-styled Democrats were still in the majority. But, by 1984, Republicans and Democrats were at a virtual tie nationwide, as these figures from NBC News election day voter polls demonstrate.

Voters’ Perceptions of Trust in 2016 Presidential Candidates, Clinton and Trump: Exploring the Election’s Outcome

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 856-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela S. Shockley-Zalabak ◽  
Sherwyn P. Morreale ◽  
Carmen Stavrositu
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Trust ◽  
Registered Voters ◽  
The U.S

This study explored voters’ perceptions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump regarding their general trust in the two 2016 presidential candidates, voters’ demographics, five underlying drivers of trust, and important campaign issues. The study also examined how perceptions of trust on issues were evidenced in the popular vote and in key swing states and the Electoral College. The study used two online census-representative surveys to examine registered voters’ perceptions: one survey of 1,500 respondents conducted immediately before the first presidential debate (September 7-15, 2016) and a second survey of a different sample of 1,500 immediately after the third debate (October 20-31), 2016. Analysis of the results confirmed relatively low-trust levels for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and an electorate divided demographically about their trust in the two candidates. The five trust drivers yielded statistically significant differences between the candidates. Clinton was evaluated as more competent, concerned, and reliable, and a person with whom participants identified. With the second survey, Trump statistically surpassed Clinton for openness and honesty. Regarding the three issues of most importance in the campaign, Clinton and Trump had equivalent trust evaluations for dealing with the U.S. economy/jobs, but Trump was more trusted regarding terrorism/national security and Clinton was more trusted regarding health care. The overall trust evaluations for Clinton, coupled with intentions to vote, contribute to understanding Clinton’s popular vote victory. However, the importance of terrorism/national security in swing states and Trump’s trust advantage on that issue contributes to understanding the Electoral College vote by comparison with the popular vote.

How the Electoral College Works

2019 ◽  
pp. 12-37
Author(s):  
George C. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Election Process ◽  
Whole Number ◽  
Complex Procedure ◽  
President Elect

This chapter discusses how the electoral college works. It shows that the popular election every fourth November is only the first step in a complex procedure that should culminate in the formal declaration of a winner two months later. In fact, under the Constitution, the November election is not for the presidential candidates themselves but for the electors who subsequently choose a president. All that the Constitution says of this stage of the election process is that “each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress.” The chapter thus discusses the roles and functions of the electors and Congress, as well as extreme cases such as when disputed votes occur or when a presidential candidate or president-elect dies.

The transformation of partisan rhetoric in American presidential campaigns, 1952–2012

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 566-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse H Rhodes ◽  
Zachary Albert
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Presidential Campaigns ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Campaign Strategies ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Dramatic Decline ◽  
Campaign Speeches ◽  
Party Differences ◽  
Over Time

What are the dynamics of partisan rhetoric in presidential campaigns? (How) has presidential candidate partisanship changed over time? Analyzing a comprehensive dataset of party-related statements in presidential campaign speeches over the 1952–2012 period, we show that Democratic and Republican candidates have taken distinctive approaches to partisanship. Overall, Democratic candidates have been partisans, while Republicans have largely refrained from partisan rhetoric on the campaign trail. However, this difference has narrowed substantially over time, due to a dramatic decline in the partisanship of Democratic presidential candidates. We argue that Democratic and Republican candidates have adopted different campaign strategies that reflect both enduring party differences and changing political contexts. Though naturally inclined to partisanship, Democratic candidates have adopted more conciliatory strategies primarily in response to growing public antipathy toward partisan rancor. In contrast, Republicans’ tendency toward more conciliatory rhetoric has been reinforced by political developments discouraging partisan campaigning.

The 3/2's Rule in Presidential Campaigning

1974 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Brams ◽  
Morton D. Davis
Keyword(s):  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Optimal Allocations ◽  
Presidential Campaigning ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

The purpose of this article is to assess the effect of the winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College on the allocation of resources by candidates to the states in a presidential campaign. Conceptualizing the campaign as a two-person zero-sum infinite game, it is found that the main effect of this feature is to induce candidates to allocate campaign resources roughly in proportion to the 3/2's power of the electoral votes of each state, which creates a peculiar bias that makes voters living in the largest states as much as three times as attractive campaign targets as voters living in the smallest states. Empirically, it is shown that the 3/2's rule explains quite well the time allocations of presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972 campaigns; for presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980, optimal allocations are indicated for all fifty states and the District of Columbia. A comparison with optimal allocations under a system of direct popular-vote election of the president reveals that such a system would be less susceptible to manipulative strategies than the Electoral College as well as being compatible with the egalitarian principle of “one man, one vote.”

scholarly journals Using Facebook data to predict the 2016 U.S. presidential election

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0253560
Author(s):  
Keng-Chi Chang ◽  
Chun-Fang Chiang ◽  
Ming-Jen Lin
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Revealed Preference ◽  
State Level ◽  
Cointegration Test ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Actual Vote

We use 19 billion likes on the posts of top 2000 U.S. fan pages on Facebook from 2015 to 2016 to measure the dynamic ideological positions for politicians, news outlets, and users at the national and state levels. We then use these measures to derive support rates for 2016 presidential candidates in all 50 states, to predict the election, and to compare them with state-level polls and actual vote shares. We find that: (1) Assuming that users vote for candidates closer to their own ideological positions, support rates calculated using Facebook predict that Trump will win the electoral college vote while Clinton will win the popular vote. (2) State-level Facebook support rates track state-level polling averages and pass the cointegration test, showing two time series share similar trends. (3) Compared with actual vote shares, polls generally have smaller margin of errors, but polls also often overestimate Clinton’s support in right-leaning states. Overall, we provide a method to forecast elections at low cost, in real time, and based on passively revealed preference and little researcher discretion.

Reform of the Electoral System

1952 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-407
Author(s):  
Ruth C. Silva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
College System

Current proposals for reform of the electoral college system are embodied in three plans which appear to be designed to enable the “conservatives” to elect a President of the United States. Since 1932, the present electoral college system has compelled both parties to nominate presidential candidates who advocate policies devised to win the votes of conscious ethnic, religious, and economic groups in metropolitan centers, where these minorities hold a balance of power in populous states controlling large blocs of electoral votes. Consequently, all recent presidential candidates have supported social security, collective bargaining, and civil rights legislation. An inspection of congressional roll calls discloses the rather obvious fact that a number of Republicans and southern Democrats hardly approve of these and other so-called Fair Deal measures.

The Electoral College Exacerbates the Red–Blue Divide and Disenfranchises Ethnic Minorities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Voting Power ◽  
Racial And Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
College System ◽  
Electoral Power ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Because of increasingly skewed populations among the 50 United States, the Electoral College is increasingly more likely to produce a winner with a minority of the popular vote. Not only has the Electoral College become a less accurate reflection of the popular vote over time, but it also suppresses the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities in U.S. presidential elections. First, as a consequence of the winner-take-all Electoral College system, states with smaller populations are allotted disproportionately high weights, such that their per-capita voting power per electoral vote is substantially greater than that of states with larger populations. For example, in 2004, residents of the least-populous state, Wyoming (164,594 people per electoral vote), had over 3.74 times the electoral power of residents in the most-populous state, California (615,848 people per electoral vote). Second, states with larger populations have a larger percentage of ethnic minorities (r = .43, p = .002). Third, if one controls for population differences, the Whiter a state is, the more electoral votes it receives. Fourth, the Whiter a state is, the more electoral power it has in terms of a lower population-per-electoral-vote ratio (r = -.37, p = .008; r = -.52, p < .001 if outlier Hawaii, with only 23% non-Hispanic/Latino Whites, is excluded). Thus, the red-versus-blue dichotomy engendered by the winner-take-all Electoral College system not only disenfranchises opinion minorities, but also systemically disenfranchises racial and ethnic minorities seeking to stake a claim on the presidential political landscape. [Abstract written August 4, 2020.]

scholarly journals The Comparison of Commisive Speech Acts by Trump and Warren Presidential Candidate Viewed from Gender Differences

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-122
Author(s):  
Zulfa Nabila ◽  
Januarius Mujiyanto ◽  
Dwi Rukmini
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
English Language ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Frequent Type ◽  
Campaign Speeches

Politics is not only controlled by male but also female. Commissive speech acts often happen in presidential campaign speeches. This research aims to analyze the comparison of commissive speech acts in English speeches by Trump and Warren presidential candidate viewed from gender differences. Qualitative method is applied in this research. The data are analyzed by using commissive speech acts from Searle (2005), Cutting (2002) and talk theory from Tannen (1991). The findings show that Trump used seven types of commissive: promise, guarantee, pledge, contract, offering, threaten, and refusal. The functions are giving solution, convincing, insulting, threatening, showing care, and encouraging. Warren used three types of commissive: promise, guarantee, and threaten. The functions are giving solution, convincing, threatening, and showing care. There are three similarities of commissive between them: promise, guarantee, and threaten. Promise is the most frequent type used by them. Viewed from gender differences, female and male presidential candidates applied report and raport talks. They tended to use report talks.The differences are that Trump employed more types of commissive than Warren did. Trump used seven types while Warren used three. Viewed from gender differences, Trump’s report talk is more varied than Warren’s. Meanwhile, Warren’s rapport talk is more varied than Trump. This research gives the example to students of English language on how to convince hearers or audience by utilizing commissive speech acts.

Recent Proposals to Reform the Electoral College System

1936 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 924-929
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Kallenbach
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
College System

Since the 1932 election, developments have occurred which indicate a growing disposition to simplify the presidential election ballot and suggest that a revision of the mode of electing the chief executive may be eventually realized through constitutional amendment. The so-called “presidential short ballot” reform, which was first adopted in Nebraska in 1917, has moved forward rapidly in recent years. Sixteen states now have enacted statutes eliminating the names of presidential electors from the general election ballot, thus permitting their voters to choose electors by indicating a preference only for a party's presidential candidates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document