There's been some discussion recently about the possibility that Barack Obama wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college; see Mark Ambinder for a pretty good articulation thereof. However, our simulation model thinks that this is actually a bigger worry for John McCain. It assigns McCain about a 5 percent chance to win the popular vote and lose the election, to Obama's 3 percent chance. So what gives?
There are a lot of different ways to approach this problem -- but there is one fundamental that should not be ignored. Namely, the allocation of electoral votes lags behind changes in the distribution of the population. Presently, the composition of the electoral college is based on the 2000 census -- what if it were based on the population in 2008 instead?
The Census Bureau does not yet have its current population estimate out for 2008. What we can do, however, is take its 2007 estimate, and then add to it the population gain between 2006 and 2007 to come up with a reasonable estimate for 2008. For example, Texas had 23.5 million people in 2006 and 23.9 million in 2007 -- a gain of about 400,000 persons. We add another 400,000 to account for population growth between 2007 and 2008, which gives us an estimate of 24.3 million for its current population.
If we do this for each state, and then reassign electoral votes based on the new population estimates, I show the following electoral votes changing hands:- Texas gains three electoral votes.
As you can see, the gains tend to come in Republican-leaning states, and the losses in Democratic-leaning ones. We can be a little bit more specific about this by apportioning the electoral vote changes based on McCain and Obama's win percentages in each state. For example, we estimate that McCain has a 95 percent chance of winning Texas, so we assign McCain 95 percent of Texas' three new electoral votes (+2.85), giving Obama the small remainder of 0.15 electoral votes.
- Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah each gain one electoral vote.
- Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania each lose one electoral vote.
- Ohio loses two electoral votes.
Overall, this results in a swing of slightly fewer than five electoral votes from McCain to Obama (actually 4.68), or a net change of 9-10. If electoral votes were assigned based on the current population, rather than the population in 2000, we would show Obama with tiny a 269.7-268.3 advantage, rather than the 274.4-263.6 advantage that we do now.
These new voters places like Texas and Arizona will show up in McCain's popular vote column -- but not in his electoral vote column until new allocations are made after the 2010 census. While there might be other reasons that the electoral math tends to be favorable to McCain, this starts him off with about a 10-EV handicap, which is pretty significant as far as these things go.
6.07.2008
How the Electoral College Hurts the GOP
@ 7:35 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments
Nate,
Doesn't this assume that the transient population that moves from a Dem leaning state to a GOP leaning state will vote more like their new state?
There are certainly other dimensions to this problem (some of which I hope to expose more fully in subsequent posts). But fundamentally, it means that a vote in Texas is worth less than one in Massachusetts, because you have the same number of electoral votes in Texas representing a larger population. Below is the number of electoral votes per resident based on my 2008 population estimates; you generally have a preponderance of GOP-leaning states toward the top of the list.
.Texas 759,406
.Florida 681,948
.California 666,343
.Arizona 651,119
.Georgia 648,371
.New York 622,235
.North Carolina 617,704
.Illinois 613,006
.Virginia 598,561
.Washington 594,641
.Pennsylvania 591,665
.Michigan 591,059
.Indiana 579,733
.New Jersey 576,485
.Ohio 572,791
.Tennessee 570,421
.Wisconsin 564,677
.Maryland 562,096
.South Carolina 561,771
.Colorado 552,184
.Utah 548,119
.Oregon 542,022
.Massachusetts 538,526
.Missouri 537,647
.Kentucky 534,609
.Nevada 527,047
.Minnesota 522,814
.Oklahoma 522,203
.Alabama 517,408
.Connecticut 499,973
.Mississippi 487,838
.Louisiana 477,627
.Arkansas 476,454
.Kansas 464,653
.Iowa 427,715
.New Mexico 397,046
.Idaho 383,085
.West Virginia 361,120
.Nebraska 356,162
.New Hampshire 329,190
.Maine 328,210
.Montana 323,697
.Hawaii 320,320
.Delaware 292,017
.South Dakota 270,170
.Rhode Island 262,014
.Alaska 232,301
.North Dakota 214,521
.Vermont 206,200
.District of Columbia 198,351
.Wyoming 176,885
Huh. All the 2010 reapportionment estimates I've read have said that North Carolina was going to gain a House seat. I'd never heard anything about South Carolina gaining one. Interesting.
Bedir,
There's no really assumption about the voting patterns of the new votes inherent in this model, because the states new voters are moving to tend to be solid red states, not swing states. In another decade the demographic shift could put someplace like Texas in play, but right now it's still solidly red. So a population shift effectively trades surplus victory margin for extra electoral votes.
This kinda proves the Democrats really need to get to work down in Texas to make it more of a swing state. I think it should replace Ohio as an important swing state. The keys are to activate and register the latino population and actually build a party in the state.
This year's election of Noriega should be interesting.
I'm just an undergrad student of political science, but I've found that the current system usually gives an advantage to those who win smaller, rural areas (conservatives), at least when compared to everyone's knee-jerk 'solution' to the Electoral College: national popular vote, which would then just give an advantage to those who win larger, urban areas (liberals).
The true solution is to change the composition of the House of Representatives using the Wyoming Rule: basing the number of voters per Representative on the population of the lowest state - take the population of state X, divide it by the population of the state with the fewest people (Wyoming), and give state X an amount of Representatives equal to the number you get, rounding up if it has a decimal larger than .5. Then you must allocate Electoral Votes proportionately amongst candidates who reach the minimum percentage of votes in a state - that minimum percentage being the percent necessary to earn at least one electoral vote in that state.
Might sound confusing, but it's actually pretty simple. I once laid out the 2000 Presidential Election (which would have required 324 Electoral Votes to win) on a spreadsheet along these lines, and it ended up Bush 323, Gore 320, Nader 4.
It's about as accurate AND fair as you can get - doesn't tilt to one political ideology, and it makes sure that every vote actually counts.
...That's just my two cents. >_>
Michael said: "The true solution is to change the composition of the House of Representatives using the Wyoming Rule: basing the number of voters per Representative on the population of the lowest state..."
The "true" solution? Actually, an obscure but interesting thread of debate in US history relates to the apportionment of House seats to states.
The Constitution is vague on the matter, in particular what to do with fractions, and luminaries as prominent as Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Webster and others weighed in on what rounding rule was "best."
Modern political scientists have proved (using an "impossibility theorem") the futility of searching for a perfect apportionment system, because there always will be the possibility of inconsistencies (weird behavior as populations shift, basically).
Google "Peyton Young" and "apportionment" and you'll find his good survey of the history of this topic.
www.census.gov/history/pdf/Fairness_in_Apportionment_Young.pdf
I'm pretty sure Michael's "Wyoming Rule" basically just works out to mirror the popular vote, but introducing a whole lot of rounding error -- similar to what the delegate allocation rules in Democratic primaries do. But there's a good reason to do that in the primaries, namely that delegates are actual people and can't be divided arbitrarily.
Maybe can explain what I'm missing, but I still do not understand why Nate uses proportional allocation of electoral votes for his projections. How does Obama have 274.4 electoral votes to 263.6 for McCain?
I'm probably missing the obvious but the analysis above used the same logic.
Thanks
If we are going to talk hypotheticals I would prefer a version of the Electoral College where all states are allocated as Maine and Nebreska thereby reducing the impact of the Electoral College, but still protecting the small states somewhat.
I think it's wrong to believe that the electoral college leads to conservative overrepresentation. Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. are overrepresented. So are Alaska, the Dakotas, and Wyoming. Seems like a tie on the small-state front.
On the big-state front, Texas, Florida, and California are underrepresented. Tie there, too.
I absolutely agree with Anon above about getting to work in Texas. The Republican hostility toward Latinos presents real opportunities there and in Arizona, along with some other (more surprising) places like Iowa, Colorado, and Georgia. Also, the high level of unionization in the casino industry presents opportunities in Nevada, which has turned into very much of a swing state.
Nate, there are at least two other aspects of this worthy of exploration in due course.
First, as you note, there will be a reapportionment after the 2010 census, i.e., effective with the 2012 elections. Partisan control of governorships and state legislatures during 2010-2011 would make a big difference in how the district lines are drawn/gerrymandered. (IIRC, the Census Bureau sends preliminary control figures to the states by the end of the census year.)
Second, although of course we are interested in how migration affects the statewide number of congressional seats and electoral votes, we are also interested in the partisan makeup or competitiveness of the CD's, and generally speaking the effect of current migration trends is toward dilution of the GOP majority in the states and in the creation of more districts that are 'at risk' of going Democratic. For example, in Virginia, even if there is no gain in House seats, the growth of northern VA suburbs has contributed to a Democratic swing both in the northern parts and the state as a whole.
FYI, perhaps the leading expert on regional migration trends in the U.S. is the demographer William Frey. You might want to Google his name + migration. Also, here's his website: http://www.frey-demographer.org/
Brad - the decimals arise because the EV projections are averages over a large numbers of simulations.
we are also interested in the partisan makeup or competitiveness of the CD's, and generally speaking the effect of current migration trends is toward dilution of the GOP majority in the states and in the creation of more districts that are 'at risk' of going Democratic. For example, in Virginia, even if there is no gain in House seats, the growth of northern VA suburbs has contributed to a Democratic swing both in the northern parts and the state as a whole.
I could easily be persuaded otherwise, but for the moment I have to suspect that the redistricting process is a lot more critical than migration patterns in determining partisan makeup of districts.
Charles, I think they both matter quite a lot. At the moment of apportionment (reapportionment) of the 435 seats among the states the differential growth/decline in population among the states does matter quite a bit (consider Nate's estimates, for example). But once that apportionment among the states is made, the (re)districting within states is affected a lot by which party controls the process and is able to gerrymand to its advantage.
Could you put up some guidelines for the comments section please? I have had a couple of my posts removed for reasons I don't understand. Are only pro-Obama posts allowed? I had an on-point rebuttal removed from Sean's (100% political) thread today. It was not offensive, etc. so I'm a bit puzzled about the rules around here.
By my 2010 population estimates, the following electoral vote changes are likely to occur after 2010:
+3: TX
+2: FL AZ
+1: GA NV UT OR
-1: MA NJ PA MI IL IA LA
-2: NY OH
Interesting, although I don't think the assumptions about new voters will work out as expected. Relative to the population upon which the census is based because those missed by the use of an older census are generally...
1. young
2. hispanic
Two groups of people that will probably go for the Democrats by a 2-1 margin.
"...which is pretty significant as far as these things go."
Why is that? What are you basing that on?
Obama says college is a "birthright."
You can't make this stuff up.
This guy is WAAAAY out there.
Actually, American's are overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic policies (stem-cell research, global warming, foreign policy, etc.), so I'd argue he's in the mainstream.
He's also gonna win, which I'm looking forward to.
And by majority of Americans you mean you.
He is NOT mainstream.
Anon above. I doubt any of your posts have been deliberately removed. I've found that the system here has some technical flaws and so sometimes not all posts actually show up if you try to look at them at a later time. Nate has stated in one of his interviews that he welcomes and hopes for a broad variety of people reading and posting here including McCain supporters.
Oh and Robby, if Americans are so overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic ideas as you say, why was President Bush elected twice, and why has a Democrat been elected only 3 times in the past 10 elections?
why was President Bush elected twice
He was "elected" by a 5-4 vote in 2000, and in 2004 through massive voter fraud in Ohio.
Brandon: "Obama says college is a "birthright."
You can't make this stuff up.
This guy is WAAAAY out there."
WAAAY out there would probably be Europe :-) I live in a not-really-rich postcommunist country (Prague, Czech Republic) and university education is free here (as in you do not have to pay anything, unless you want to study much longer than the standard time - then you have to pay something like $1500/year).
University education is also free in most other European Union countries. And yes, we have universal health care and I can buy twice as many dollars for my currency as five years ago.
It is really funny for me that Barack Obama is sometimes labeled as "too liberal" when he could easily run for a right-wing party here. And he would win hands down, because he is really head and shoulders above OUR politicians :-)
Brandon:
The reasons that a majority of Americans now favor the policies advocated by Democrats can be summed up in two words: George Bush. This administration has had its collective head buried for eight years where "the sun don't shine," (down an oil well) that the public has come to recognize the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the current Republicans. But don't despair. The GOP will be back up on top in about a generation.
As for who's mainstream, that will not be settled by battling bloggers but by the electorate this fall.
Brandon, this thread is about the electoral college and how it impacts the respective parties. It's not about Obama and his views on the educational system.
There are plenty of sites on the web that will be happy to oblige your desire for polemical discussion. This isn't one of them.
The same PV/EV relation probably holds as a rule for recent election. Gore was a few hundred votes away from a result were his EV wold easily outdo his PV (yor projection would probably have picked that up as the likelier scenario); Kerry was a few tens of thousands votes away. Indeed, pre-2000 speculation was mostly about Gore winning EV but losing PV.
Oh and Brandon, the President's approval rating is at about 27% (I'm guessing you fall into that minority); do you think he'd win if he ran again? No? Why not? Because he, along with his cronies, ruined this country's economy and standing in the world in a very short time.
I love how Republican trolls like to tell us how "waaaay" out there and scaaaary Obama is, when in reality, he's a pretty conventional liberal. You can't scare people stupid this time. Sorry.
Looking at the 1920/24/28 maps and seeing a total of 531 EVs (on an average pop. vote total of around 30m) hammers home the point that the size of the House is an anachronism, and the apportionment of districts is a hideously blunt instrument in the presidential race.
In that regard, the Maine/Nebraska model is still unsatisfactory, not just because of gerrymandering, but because larger states will still be stiffed on House apportionment. The National Interstate Compact has much more going for it.
Awesome. On the danger of nitpicking the subject to death, let me ask if participation rates are even across states.
I am assuming that congressional districts are awarded according to the counted proportion of the population.
The total popular vote, however, consists of people who are actually voting.
If participation rates vary across states, how does that affect the disparity between popular and electoral college vote?
This question becomes marginally relevant to your analysis should it turn out that recent movers are less likely to vote . . . although I admit its still an unfair objection. I don't intend it as criticism. I just couldn't contain my curiosity.
I'm not sure you'd seen the following Cartograms. I wasn't sure if you had removed the old one because it was hard to read, but there are some on this site which still allow you to tell the state while still representing electoral strength in a snazzy way.
Site with cool cartograms
Here's voting turnout by state in 2004. Note there are different ways to calculate those rates, in particular as US Census tends to do it as voters/voting age population (VAP) vs. a more refined voter eligible population (VEP) which adjusts for ineligibility.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm
Oh and Brandon, the President's approval rating is at about 27%
You give the bastard, idiotic, fratboy war criminal too much credit. In the last Zogby poll he was at 23%, and in the last CBS poll he was at 25%. Which goes to show that between 23% and 25% of Americans are mentally ill.
On the "is Obama mainstream" issue - it depends (and has been polled).
Voters prefer McCain on Iraq, taxes and immigration. They prefer Obama on the economy, gay rights/abortion, energy, and healthcare.
I think McCain could move the numbers on social issues, for instance, if Obama's opposition to a partial birth abortion ban were more widely known. Where he needs to make up ground though is the economy - he needs to turn his experience argument in his favour and suggest Obama will fumble the economy.
On the other hand, Obama can score the most points, I would think, on Iraq. Voters prefer McCain, although they strongly prefer Obama's position.
I should add, Democratic primary voters thought Clinton would outperform Obama in every single issue area (they were essentially tied on the war and the environment) except uniting the country (which isn't really in issue). This was based on a March 7th poll.
Here are all the other Prediction Websites
270ToWin.com
Coldheartedtruth
Election Junkie
Electoral Vote Federal Review
FiveThirtyEight.com
The Hedgehog Report
Having analyzed them all, I came with the conclusion that this one, 538, is the best.
What I like here, is also the intelligent, with few exceptions, comments posted. While not a statistician, I had to take statistics in college and never liked it, but being a political junkie, and do enjoy and appreciate all theses charts, graphs etc.
Keep the good work guys, and thank you.
Brandon
Some empirical data for you:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues
"This month, the Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on eight out of ten electoral issues tracked regularly by Rasmussen Reports (see data tables). The two parties are essentially even on the other two issues. A month ago, the Democrats had the advantage on all ten issues."
All let you peruse the rest on your own.
Happy reading!
Nate,
Since someone mentioned this in a previous post, what would happen if all states were like Maine and Nebraska? With the current available polls and the regression model, that is.
This is the first time I post a comment here. Congrats on your great and accurate job. I'm neither an American nor a resident of the USA but I find this election electrifying.
"Overall, this results in a swing of slightly fewer than five electoral votes from McCain to Obama (actually 4.68)"
Shouldn't it read "from Obama to McCain"?
There is a fundamental flawed premise to this argument (to the extent it involves population movement between states rather than natural birth increase (given that babies can't vote)).
One single national popular vote is the same no matter what state it is cast in. Someone who just moved to Texas or Arizona and votes for McCain would also have done so if he/she had stayed in his/her original state regardless if it were a red state or a blue state.
Of course, it is true that McCain would do better in the electoral college under its 2012 apportionment instead of today's. But the notion that a popular vote/electoral college difference is more likely because of population movements of adults between states is flawed.
There seems to still be a lot of confusion about this posting so I'll attempt to explain in lieu of Nate:
It is typically thought that the electoral college helps out the republican party because they tend to win many of the less-populous states. As such, they get those extra electoral votes which are proportioned out by number of senate seats. If it were instead that states only got one electoral vote per house seat, then the more populous states which democrats tend to win would hold a larger proportion of the electoral votes, thus advantaging democrats (or so the typical analysis holds). Notice that each state gets a number of house seats based entirely on that state's population, not on how many people in that state end up voting. Notice also that each state (except Nebraska and Maine) is winner-take-all, so if a state with 8 million people typically votes 75% republican, then having 2 million democrats move to the state should give even more electors to the republicans because the state will still likely vote about 60% republican.
The wrinkle in this, though, is that the electors corresponding house seats (which is the part of the vote which represents the state's population) do not in fact represent the current state's population, but rather the state's population eight years ago. As such, since lower-population states happen to be the fastest growing right now, many of the smaller states that republicans tend to win are underrepresented in the electoral college with respect to how it is supposed to be, not necessarily with respect to how the popular vote will go.
Therefore the typical analysis of "republicans get an unfair advantage in the electoral college" doesn't go into enough depth on the issue. Indeed, if republicans win fewer than 27 states this year, then they would be likely to fare better if instead each state got its vote weighted not by the number of members in congress but rather by the total population of the state. This still has nothing to do with the popular vote of the entire general election, though, as turnout percentage varies between states and also states are winner-take-all except for Nebraska and Maine.
I enjoy this site but have found myself confused at times. (No one has ever accused me of being smart.)
While this site projects approximately 274 EVs for Obama, is that not misleading?
If you look at the charts, the states that McCain wins result in more than 270 votes. I believe this is because of the methodology. (e.g. In NC, McCain is projected to win 80% of the time. Ergo, he is credited with 80% of the EVs, or 12.)
This takes us down the primrose path as, with a couple of exceptions, all states are winner take all.
Based on this, the electoral map favors McCain.
This also contradicts what was posted a couple of days ago on Kos. That posting showed McCain with a large lead in the South Region but trailing badly in the East and West. Obama leads slightly in the Midwest.
Perhaps someone can shed some light on my confusion and obvious ignorance.
But it would be also misleading, if Ohios 20 EV would go for McCain. He is projected to win there about 50.5% of the time. Obama wins the other 4950 of 1000 Elections.
The Electoral Votes projected there are the Average of the 10000 simulation runs.
Actually Pablano, I'm gonna argue that the chance of either winning the electoral collage but not the popular vote is negligible and more or less a function of adjusted voter turnout (i.e. low turnout in California)
However, What you're saying here really more means that the Electoral Collage will help the Republicans in 2008.
Let's examine where they're gaining electoral votes:
Texas. Here, the increased population is largely due to Hispanics. However, the republican's advantage here has been shrinking accordingly. (right now, If I recall right, Hispanics and blacks make up about as much of the population as whites.) By 2012, this state could be a serious swing state.
Arizona. This is due to Hispanics, California retirees. If McCain wasn't the republican nominee, this could have been a serious swing state this election. (Before he was, Intrade gave the dems a 30% chance.)
South Carolina. Charlotte Suburbs. Transplants from those tech states, which tends to mean upscale liberals. SC's staying Red, but NC's another matter...
Utah and Nevada = Mormons
Not entirely sure about Georgia, and Florida's well... Florida. NYC retirees and Cubans.
so to a large extent, a lot of the states which are gaining EVs are trending blue.
Bill: If McCain has a win probability of 0.8 in, say, 5 states, the probability of him winning all 5 is still only about 0.33. It's actually more probable (0.41) that McCain would win 4 and Obama 1. It's right that the expected EV hauls from these states reflect this.
One problem I have with this site, if my analysis is correct, is the distribution of electoral votes in a percentage-based way, which is not the way they are actually allocated. For example, currently, you have Barack Obama 'winning' the electoral college (EC) by 274.4 to 263.6. However, if you add up the EC votes for states that he is actually winning (>50%+1), he is actually losing the EC 252 to 286. I do admit, though, that if there is some statistical calculus that would justify this reasoning and is being used, then I would not know it.
Doesn't this analysis miss something crucial? The electoral college isn't just based on House seats; it also gives 2 electoral votes per state on the basis of Senate seats. State A, which has one-fifth the population of State B, will get MORE than one-fifh of the electoral votes than state B gets, because of these 2 extra votes. Since the Republicans dominate the low-population states, they clean up on this basis. On balance, the electoral college helps the GOP, then - this difference is bigger that the 5-seat swing that Nate projects would come from more updated census info. Or am I wrong about this? Did the analysis already take into account this fact? I don't see where it did. - Raj
How about a "Electoral College Changes" series?
This post could be included (how census affects results). Then you could do one where the senate seats were left out (removing the small state advantage). You could do one, as suggested, where each state apportions by congressional district (with the senate seats going for the state?), and then maybe just a general analysis of if the electoral college were removed and it went strictly by popular vote (particularly how often there would have to be a nation-wide recount or something).
michael,
that´s true.
For example he wins 49,5% of the Ohio elections, so he gets 20*49,5%= 9,9 Electoral Votes there.
It is still a state McCain is actually "winning" but in only 5050 of 10000 elections. Obama wins the other 4950.
In response to comments about republicans dominating the smallest states:
In the bottom 10 states for population five are reliably red (Montana, North and South Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming). Four are reliably blue (, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont). And NH is looking like a swing state this election. Add in DC with three electoral votes and the two parties are tied in the smallest states, all of whose electoral weight is at least doubled by senate representation.
Whichever party wins the majority of the 50 states + DC is going to benefit from the added weight given to states by senators. It doesn't matter if they're winning the smallest states, medium sized ones, or the biggest ones.
Seandalai: Thanks for your response, but I do disagree with it. I think!
To have an 80% chance of winning a state must be based on some spread in the polling. To lose even one of five states in which a candidate has a significant lead (and it must be significant to go to that candidate 80% of the time), would be a major upset in that state.
Regardless of the percentages, the current electoral map, as shown by this site, shows McCain winning more than 270 EVs. (This assumes a winner take all, and it also assumes he wins the states in which he has a greater than 50% probability.)
Michael, I think, is dead on with his comments.
Being pro-Obama, this bums me out!
I'll take the 10 EV advantage. Thank you very much. I almost think it would be sweet justice (in a way) for Obama to win while losing the popular vote just like Dubya did in 2000.
Although really I would prefer a landslide win not only for my blood pressure but also to give the admin a greater sense of power to make real change happen.
Bill -
Your argument circles back around on itself. To lose a state where you have an 80% chance of winning is not a "major upset" - it's the kind of upset you expect to happen about 20% of the time, in fact, that's what it means to have an 80% chance of winning!
Perhaps a concrete example would make more intuitive sense - if you look at North Carolina today, Obama is behind by 6% in the polls, and so the analysis gives him a 20% shot at winning. Winning when you're 6% behind in the polls is not a "major upset."
Perhaps the FAQ will make more sense, and I encourage you to read it - my understanding comes entirely from reading the FAQ. What the analysis does is NOT to assign electoral votes proportionally in any way. It makes every state a coin and "weights" each coin, so that the "Ohio" coin (Obama estimated behind 0.2%) comes up Obama 49.1% of the time and the "New Mexico" coin (Obama estemated ahead 2.2%) comes up Obama 62.6% of the time.
Now that you've weighted the coins, toss them all, and read the electoral votes off of the coins. That's your election - it's winner take all, but with the states "flipping" based on the information from the polling, accounting for the fact that polling isn't perfect. Now repeat that coin toss 9,999 more times, and that's how you get the "Obama Electoral Votes" histogram. In none of those 10,000 coin flips do you assign electoral votes proportionally (except in states that themselves do that, of course).
PS to Bill -
As to the "McCain has more than 270 EVs point," let's try a thought experiment.
We live in a country with 26 states, conveniently one for every level in the alphabet, and we're running for president.
The 25 states from Arkansas-Youragan has 3 electoral votes, but Zanzabar is a very large state with 25 electoral votes (a total of 100 electoral votes).
The polling has you ahead by a tiny margin in the first 25 states. Polbano gives you a 51% chance of winning each of those states.
But I'm the junior senator from Zanzabar and I'm 80% ahead in the polls in that state. Polbano basically gives me a 100% chance of winning Zanzabar.
If you just "count the EVs," I'm losing in a landslide - 75 EVs to 25 EVs. However, I feel really good, because I know that chances are I'm almost certainly going to win almost half of the states where the polling puts you ahead by a tiny tiny fraction and I have a 49% chance of winning, and so my strong lead in Zanzabar almost guarantees a win. 49%/51% is basically a coin flip, and so the only way I'll lose is if you get very, very lucky and the coin that is weighted very slightly in your favor is actually weighted very heavily in your favor.
Similarly, some of the states where McCain is very slightly ahead - New Hampshire and Nevada, say, are unlikely to all fall in McCain's column. Obama is projected as the winner because he has a smaller number of "coins" that are "more weighted in his favor" - Obama's coins aren't likely to flip to McCain, but McCain's are likely to flip to Obama.
I thank everyone who has tried to straighten me out!!!!!! Believe it or not, I actually took more than one semester of Probability & Statistics in grad school!!!!!
I think the issue (my issue) is that when I look at the charts, McCain has more than 50% probability in states totalling more than 270 EVs.
Question: (and you may answer either scientifically or gut feeling) Would you rather be ahead (using this site's methodology) 67/33 in three states of equal EVs or 100/0 in two and 0/100 in the third?
While they both project the same number of EVs (if I understand the methodology correctly), I think I would take the former example as it gives me a solid advantage in all three states.
We are going to lose 16 electoral votes in 2012!
Time to prepare for permanent loss of the executive (at least until we can flip Texas).
Flinger makes an excellent point, which only underscores how vital this particular 2008 Election really is. If Obama can win this one (and govern as well as we all seem to feel he will), then his 2112's Re-election campaign will most likely be able to withstand the way the quicksand is flowing....
If, however, we are living under a President McCain, no matter how poorly he governs, the power of the Incumbency, combined with the shifting demographics, could make him all but unbeatable.
So let's win this one!
Bill -
I believe I can answer very scientifically that "it depends."
Here's the new thought experiment. Say you and I are running, and there are *only* those three states you spoke of. You'd rather be in the position where you had a guaranteed win in two states and a guaranteed loss in one. In that situation, you win 100% of the time, where as in the 67/33 situation, you will only win 74% of hypothetical elections.
However, say there are a number of other states, and I (running against you) have a regional advantage over you so that you will win if and only if you win ALL THREE of those hypothetical states. Well, then you're guaranteed to lose in the first situation, but in the second situation you'll at least have something like an 30% chance of winning the election, so the tables have been exactly reversed - you'd prefer to have some chance of winning the election, after all!
By the way, I must say that I enjoy these questions, because I find that as I try to answer them the situation has a sort of amazing complexity that I hadn't really realized before. I understand you have a gut reaction to McCain currently having more than a 50% probability in states totaling more than 270 EVs, but I hope the "Arkansas-Zanzabar" thought experiment helps explain why that gut reaction can lead you astray.
What I'm nervous about is that if the election was run 1000 times today, McCain would, according to Polbano, win the White House 481 times. We've gotta drive that number down.
On your regional, state-by-state breakdown sidebar, you've got Obama taking a 61% of the vote in Virginia, yet you've got the state colored red and its 13 EVs going to McCain...typo?!
Like Virginia on your sidebar...same with Indiana...
Nate,
A note on your methodology of projecting 2008 population from 2007 data. Population growth tends to be exponential, not linear. It may not make much difference in this particular case, but since you have to do it one way or another, I recommend multiplying the 2007 population by the ratio of the 2007 population estimate to the 2006 population estimate. In symbols it would be:
538's 2008 est. =
2007 est x (2007 est/2006 est)
Matthew Yglesias cited this article as evidence that conservatives are inclined to support a popular vote movement.
Respectfully, no. The data here mean that Republicans will come after Democrats in 2012 with both barrels blazing.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮,租車,花東 旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮,旅遊,租車公司,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮地圖,包車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮 租車,租車,花蓮租車資訊網,花蓮旅遊,租車,花東,花東地圖,租車公司,租車網,花蓮租車旅遊,租車,花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊,租車網,花蓮海洋公園,租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,租車網,花蓮租車公司,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車公司,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮泛舟,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東旅遊萬事通,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮太魯閣,花蓮包車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,租車,花蓮旅遊推薦,花蓮旅遊包車,花蓮租車,花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮地圖,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊資訊網,花蓮旅遊景點,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊景點,花東旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,旅遊達人,旅遊達人blog,花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花東旅遊,地圖,租車,賞鯨泛舟溯溪,租車,[ 芝麻店家 ] 花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮租車-行易花蓮旅遊租車資訊網 ,旅遊網,旅遊景點,花蓮行程,花蓮,花東,旅遊租車,旅遊,花蓮,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車旅遊,行易旅遊民宿資訊網,花蓮,旅遊,花蓮,一日遊,花蓮好玩的地方,花蓮,,一日遊,花東,租車,旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊-花東旅遊萬事通,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment