Turning Landslides into Cliff hangers: An Analysis of Presidential Election Returns

1986 ◽  
Vol 79 (8) ◽  
pp. 605-608
Author(s):  
David R. Duncan ◽  
Bonnie H. Litwiller
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Electoral Vote

The 1980 U.S. presidential election is widely perceived to have been a landslide. If one considers the electoral-vote totals (489 for Reagan; 49 for Carter), “landslide” seems an apt description. Popular-vote totals (43 899 248 for Reagan; 35 481 435 for Carter) depict a more competitive contest. The plurality (8 417 813) is still, however, substantial.

scholarly journals Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (45) ◽  
pp. 27940-27944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Erikson ◽  
Karl Sigman ◽  
Linan Yao
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Past ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Republican Candidate

Donald Trump’s 2016 win despite failing to carry the popular vote has raised concern that 2020 would also see a mismatch between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College. This paper shows how to forecast the electoral vote in 2020 taking into account the unknown popular vote and the configuration of state voting in 2016. We note that 2016 was a statistical outlier. The potential Electoral College bias was slimmer in the past and not always favoring the Republican candidate. We show that in past presidential elections, difference among states in their presidential voting is solely a function of the states’ most recent presidential voting (plus new shocks); earlier history does not matter. Based on thousands of simulations, our research suggests that the bias in 2020 probably will favor Trump again but to a lesser degree than in 2016. The range of possible outcomes is sufficiently wide, however, to even include some possibility that Joseph Biden could win in the Electoral College while barely losing the popular vote.

Electoral College Winner's Advantage

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 353-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack E. Riggs ◽  
Gerald R. Hobbs ◽  
Todd H. Riggs
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All ◽  
Margin Of Victory

Compared to the popular vote, the Electoral College magnifies the perception of the winner's margin of victory. In this analysis, a method of quantifying the magnitude of the advantage given to the winner due to the Electoral College's two electoral vote add-on and winner-take-all methodologies is presented. Using the electoral vote distribution that was present in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, we analyzed one million random two-candidate simulated elections. The results show that the net effect of the Electoral College is to give the winning candidate an average 29.45 electoral vote advantage per election due to the winner-take-all methodology. This winner's advantage includes an average 0.42 electoral vote advantage given to the winner per election due to the two electoral vote add-on.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Robert M. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Party System ◽  
The Body ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Common Criticism ◽  
Historical Controversies

This chapter examines common arguments surrounding the Electoral College. Many of these arguments were present with the 2016 presidential election. The election marked the sixth time the popular vote winner did not win the Electoral College vote. It also witnessed the largest number of faithless votes for president in history. Lastly, it marked the second time in the last three elections that a state split its electoral vote total. Each represents a common criticism of the institution. Proponents of the body suggested the institution worked as it should—especially in regard to protecting the interests of less populated states and supporting the two-party system. All arguments over the Electoral College ultimately relate to issues over representation. The chapter concludes by examining historical controversies relating to the Electoral College and several reform efforts aimed at the body.

The 2016 Election: Like 1888 but not 1876 or 2000

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Barthélémy ◽  
Mathieu Martin ◽  
Ashley Piggins
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Us ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
House Size

ABSTRACTDonald J. Trump won the 2016 US presidential election with fewer popular votes than Hillary R. Clinton. This is the fourth time this has happened, the others being 1876, 1888, and 2000. In earlier work, we analyzed these elections (and others) and showed how the electoral winner can often depend on the size of the US House of Representatives. This work was inspired by Neubauer and Zeitlin (2003, 721–5) in their paper, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” A sufficiently larger House would have given electoral victories to the popular vote winner in both 1876 and 2000. An exception is the election of 1888. We show that Trump’s victory in 2016 is like Harrison’s in 1888 and unlike Hayes’s in 1876 and Bush’s in 2000. This article updates our previous work to include the 2016 election. It also draws attention to some of the anomalous behavior that can arise under the Electoral College.

WHY THE STATE-BY-STATE POLITICAL ECONOMY MODEL DID IT RIGHT

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (01) ◽  
pp. 45-46
Author(s):  
Bruno Jerôme ◽  
Véronique Jerôme-Speziari
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
The State ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Final State ◽  
Economy Model ◽  
Error Margin ◽  
Us Presidential Election

One hundred and forty two days before the 2012 US presidential election our final State-by-State Political-Economy Model gave an advantage to Barack Obama with 51.6% of the popular vote (error margin ± 4.47) and 324 electoral votes (Jerôme and Jerôme-Speziari 2012). On November 6, 2012, with 51.6% of the vote and 332 electoral votes, the Democratic incumbent wins a second term. Regarding certainty of an Obama plurality, the model gave a probability of victory by 64%. In 2012, it seems that this was enough to ensure a good predictability.

Almost “Nothing New Under the Sun”: American politics and the election of Donald Trump

Leadership ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
George R Goethals
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
The Social ◽  
Large Factor ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

Donald Trump’s surprising 2016 election as President of the United States was unusual both in the set of states he won and in clearly winning the electoral vote while decisively losing the popular vote. His victory is somewhat less surprising given recent Republican domination of American politics, a context which provides Trump both leadership opportunities and constraints. A large factor in Trump’s rise is the leader–follower dynamics of crowds, seen throughout time, which enabled him to win an uncritical and devoted following. An important part of that dynamic was Trump’s validation of the social identity of the white working class in the United States, especially in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s both implicit and explicit denigration of that base of Trump support. Trump’s identity story for his base is unusually exclusive, highlighted by ingroup vs. outgroup hostility. His appeal is compared to inclusive identity stories successfully related by other US presidents, which suggest how future leaders might effectively touch “the better angels of our nature.”

scholarly journals CATHOLICS AND THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-312
Author(s):  
Corwin Smidt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Political Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Past ◽  
Swing Vote ◽  
Election Process

This article examines the role of Catholics within the 2020 presidential election in the United States. Although Catholics were once a crucial and dependable component of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition, their vote in more recent years has been much more splintered. Nevertheless, Catholics have been deemed to be an important “swing vote” in American politics today, as in recent presidential elections they have aligned with the national popular vote. This article therefore focuses on the part that Catholics played within the 2020 presidential election process. It addresses the level of political change and continuity within the ranks of Catholics over the past several elections, how they voted in the Democratic primaries during the initial stages of the 2020 presidential election, their level of support for different candidates over the course of the campaign, how they ultimately came to cast their ballots in the 2020 election, and the extent to which their voting patterns in 2020 differed from that of 2016.

scholarly journals Two U.S. elections: 1960 and 2000. A comparison of character

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Simon Power
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Character Development ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Presidential Candidates

<p>The United States presidential election in 2000 was one of the closest in history. In 1960, the winner of the popular vote in that presidential election won by the narrowest of margins. Forty years separated the two results, and both involved a sitting Vice President losing to a relative newcomer.  This study sets out the backgrounds of each of the four presidential candidates who competed in 1960 and 2000 and aims to understand the character of each by examining the influences on their lives and the development of their defining character traits. The second aim is to understand the authentic nature of their character by applying several theoretical frameworks to each of them. The application of these theoretical models is done in the context of the outcomes of the 1960 and 2000 elections and, in particular, the losing candidates’ reactions to those results. It is at this most crucial moment that decision-making best reflects whether the candidate’s reaction is authentic in the context of his character development.</p>

scholarly journals Bread-in-pandemic voting: forecasting the 2020 United States presidential election with the Bread and Peace model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drew Thomas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Personal Income ◽  
Income Growth ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Major Party ◽  
Past Work ◽  
Election Result ◽  
Using Data

The Bread and Peace model of US presidential elections estimates `VOTE`, the incumbent’s party’s share of the major-party vote, as a function of rates of personal-income growth and military fatalities during the incumbent president’s term. I replicate past work fitting the model to elections since 1952, confirming that income growth and war deaths account for most variation in VOTE. Using data available as of the end of October, I then develop 5 income-growth forecasts for Donald Trump’s presidential term and use them to forecast Trump’s share of the two-party vote in the 2020 election. My 5 forecasts range from 49.3% to 56.1% with a mean of 53.0%, notably higher than final polling averages of 45.6%–46.2% and a preliminary election result of 48%. An idiosyncratic factor such as the sitting president’s impeachment might account for the model overrating Donald Trump’s popular-vote performance.

The Popular Vote and Misfires in the Electoral College

2019 ◽  
pp. 93-121
Author(s):  
Robert M. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Changing Demographics ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Potential Challenge

This chapter examines the relationship among the electoral vote, the popular vote, and legitimacy in presidential elections. The Framers sought a process that preserved federalism and yielded candidates with broad appeal across the country. Forty percent of all presidential contests can be classified as hairbreadth elections (decided by less than 75,000 votes). Twenty percent of all elections have been decided by just 10,000 votes. On six occasions, the candidate winning the popular vote failed to win the Electoral College vote. These so-called misfire elections have occurred in two of the last five campaigns and have the potential to occur with greater frequency given changing demographics. The divergence between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote represents a potential challenge to legitimacy for incoming presidents. Specific attention is devoted to how misfire elections may have affected the agenda of incoming presidents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document