Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Popular Vote v Electoral Vote

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、...

2009-09-10T01:29:15.832-04:00

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~!!

a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美...

2009-03-29T22:40:00.000-04:00

a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊

成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優

成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室

美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室

成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室

a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊

a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T05:32:00.000-04:00

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T05:31:00.000-04:00

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,...

2009-02-12T22:49:00.000-05:00

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, ...

2009-02-09T01:45:00.000-05:00

Interesting about Missouri. I have always thought...

2008-07-24T12:10:00.000-04:00

Interesting about Missouri. I have always thought that Missouri was much more closer demographically to IN and NC. All three states have large urban areas (STL, KC, Indy, "The Region" of Lake Michigan, Charlotte, Raliegh), have areas where you would think you were in a West Virginia coal mining area (south-central MO, Southern IN, northwestern NC), a lot of small, industrial centers (Springfield, MO Anderson, IN Ashville, NC) and huge religious populations.

Rasmussen has Obama leading only 11 point in hie h...

2008-07-10T10:47:00.000-04:00

Rasmussen has Obama leading only 11 point in hie home state of Illinois in today's released poll.
No way, I'd bet my hose in Eureka, that Obam is at least 25 ahead in his home state of IL.

Really, something is wrong with Rasmussen polls......

fang2415 -I don't think proportionality would empo...

2008-06-19T15:47:00.000-04:00

fang2415 -

I don't think proportionality would empower third parties. It would simply throw the election into Congress whenever a strong third candidate happens to run. Personally I'd hate to see Congress choose our president and I think most people would feel the same way... which is probably why nobody's advocating the idea.

And in fact most Americans already agree on a simpler solution. Every poll for the past 65 years has shown a large and consistent majority of the public favoring a direct popular vote. This majority exists in swing states and solid states, in big states and small states, among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

"One voter = one vote" is definitely a radical departure from our existing system. But it's hardly a radical idea... at least not for a people who cherish democracy.

@yohoho78:You're definitely right about the 270 th...

2008-06-19T06:29:00.000-04:00

@yohoho78:

You're definitely right about the 270 thing empowering third parties, but I actually think that would be an advantage of proportionality. The current system favors two-party lock pretty heavily, and personally I think an environment where more parties could actually matter would be a big step forward.

As for adoption, I see what you mean, but I could see a counter-argument too. Switching to proportionality would lessen the impact of swing states and increase the impact of safe states (though against the ruling party's interest). I could see two incentives for adoption:

1) States who are swing states now and want to "lock in" their contested status in the future.

Colorado is actually a perfect example -- they actually voted on this in 2004, but the change would have applied (possibly illegally) to the 2004 election itself. The measure failed because CO didn't want to lose the swing status it knew it had at that moment. But if the measure had applied to future elections, Coloradans from both parties might have reasoned that they'd rather keep Colorado somewhat competetive in the future regardless of whether the state's party balance shifted away from 50-50.

The key is that contested electors are what matter. Under the current system, a state either gets many contested electors (9 for CO, 20 for OH, etc.) or 0. With proportional electors, each state almost always gets 1 or 2. If states are willing to gamble that they will be one of the handful of swing states that matter, then they stick with the current system; if they want to play it safe, it's in their interest to switch.

2) If a state is going to give up a lot of its national relevance by signing up to the National Popular Vote, it might as well keep some by going proportional.

You could be right about the rural voters thing BTW. I just think that it'd be easier to make a less radical departure from the intent of the system we've got and I'm surprised that I haven't heard anybody advocating it.

maxdaddy -The big problem with the Electoral Colle...

2008-06-18T12:54:00.000-04:00

maxdaddy -

The big problem with the Electoral College is not that it favors small states, but that it favors swing states. Sure, a WY voter has much better representation than a CA voter, but that fact is practically meaningless because in real life both states are taken for granted and both voters are totally ignored. Small states need to wake up and understand there's no advantage to being over-represented in a system where everybody knows how you're going to vote and so nobody pays attention to you.

fang2415 -

A couple big problems with proportionality:

* Increased chance of elections being thrown into Congress: if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, Congress decides the outcome. With proportionality, this would happen whenever you have a strong third-party candidate (e.g. Perot) splitting the vote three ways.

* Difficulty of implementation: For states that aren't swing states, switching to proportionality gives an instant disadvantage to the party they usually support... e.g. if CA switches to proportionality, the Dems lose 20 electoral votes. And states that are swing states stand to lose a huge amount of power... e.g. if CO switches to proportionality, instead of all 9 electoral votes up for grabs, it would have only 1, because 4 would be solid D and 4 would be solid R. So it would be very hard to get any state to switch.

BTW I see no reason to assume that a popular vote would hurt rural voters. After all, states elect their governors, senators and others by popular vote and you don't see them campaigning solely in urban areas.

Juris -

No system is perfect, but IMO National Popular Vote would surely be better than what we have now... a system where:

* most states and most voters are taken for granted and ignored

* the candidate with the most votes can lose

To me, those are much more serious flaws than the ones you mention.

maxdaddy, of course you're right about Wyoming bei...

2008-06-18T12:35:00.000-04:00

maxdaddy, of course you're right about Wyoming being over-counted, but this is one of the fundamental ideas (and, IMO a good one) behind the electoral college, or, for that matter, Congress. The Constitution has a lot of these sort of checks to avoid a tyranny of the majority -- the worry is that if states with low populations don't receive a slight weighting in national affairs, they'll simply be ignored, for ever.

Under a proportional system, candidates would still spend most of their time in states with high population densities so that their ad buys etc. translate to more electoral votes. Wyoming's weight is only slight, and no more undemocratic than their right to a minimum of 2 senators and 1 representative. Three (actually, probably just one) truly up-for-grabs electoral votes might get them a tiny bit more presidential attention per capita than Californians would get. But if we have a national popular vote, no candidate will ever bother promising better schools to Wyomingites, or any to any other rural voters, for that matter. They'll just campaign in big cities.

Even for people who agree with your objection on a moral level, it would unfortunately open up a discussion of whether Wyoming truly matters, which in turn opens up a discussion of things like "should we have states" -- I'm not sure those questions would lead to very productive policy debates.

If you ask me, proportional electors is a gradual, moderate change that keeps most of these fundamental constitutional structures as they are, but would be massively more democratic than the current winner-takes-all system because it would ensure that every vote matters. (Assuming it works! Nate, I wonder if you'll read this far down the thread?...)

Fang2415 is right that electoral college proportio...

2008-06-18T11:26:00.000-04:00

Fang2415 is right that electoral college proportionality would help, but we'd still have a voter from Wyoming count more than a voter from California. In the last presidential election, each California electoral vote represented about 225,000 voters. Wyoming's total vote cast for president barely exceeded that number yet Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes--roughly one for every 80,000 voters. Unfortunately, given the way we amend our Constitution, it will be a long day before the small states give up this disproportionate power, whether they be red states or blue states.

This National Popular Vote debate brings up a ques...

2008-06-18T05:57:00.000-04:00

This National Popular Vote debate brings up a question that I would love to see some numbers on: would the popular vote be less likely to contradict the electoral vote if states chose electors proportionally?

If so, then states' adoption of proportional selection of electors could satisfy the basic criticism of the electoral college as being undemocratic, with several extra benefits:

* Every vote would count (at least within the proportion needed for an extra elector in each state -- much more than most votes count for now)
* Every state would be worth fighting for
* It still keeps the electoral college weighting so that states like Wyoming aren't totally ignored
* States still manage elections
* States can adopt the change one at a time, without waiting for critical mass
* It allows a state to "lock in" swing-state status, guaranteeing it will get permanent presidential attention

I've always been a little surprised that with all the advocacy about the electoral college's problems, this never gets mentioned as a solution. I guess the real question is whether it would solve the problem of contradictory popular/electoral outcomes.

Nate, you reckon you could run the chart above with the assumption of proportionally-assigned electors?

I oppose the National Popular Vote idea for two ve...

2008-06-17T15:31:00.000-04:00

I oppose the National Popular Vote idea for two very simple, but related reasons.

(1) The way we count votes, even the eligibility rules for voting, differ too much across states. But the effects of bad laws in one state have less impact on the overall result now than they would if a given state's popular vote had a greater impact on who wins the national-level election.

If the GOP and its laws (e.g., felony disenfranchisement and voter ID laws) and the actions of the Secretary of state in FL and OH, for example, succeeded in suppressing minority votes in their states -- as they did in 2000 and 2004 -- that's bad enough, but it only affected those two states. So the electoral college method keeps the corruption within state borders.

(2) How the votes are actually recorded and talleyed differs greatly from state to state, and having a "national popular vote" law isn't going to affect that as long as elections are run by state and local governments -- which would still be the case. Even the rules for determining when an automatic recount is required differ between states. And the rule for how absentee ballots are used, or even counted, differ from state to state. This opens up the possibility for further corruption.

Imagine if the "National Popular Vote" were high contested, say within 50,000 to 100,000 votes. Then what? We would demand a "national recount," not a state recount. And that would take forever and lead to a virtual civil war if some states felt that other states were deliberately miscounting or undercounting votes.

IMO, only when there is a uniform set of rules for voter eligibility and administration, and only when the method of casting and counting ballots is as reliable as it is in, say, Brazil (as opposed to, say, Russia), would I endorse a national count.

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain mig...

2008-06-17T12:57:00.000-04:00

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

susan

Nate,Another fascinating graphic! Sometimes we ge...

2008-06-17T12:22:00.000-04:00

Nate,

Another fascinating graphic! Sometimes we get too caught up in the battleground states and ignore the fact that even a marginal win by 3 or 4 points virtually guarantees an EV win.

OT opinions of one loyal reader:

1. Please show state projections pre-time adjustment and show the amount of the time adjustment for each state. It's fascinating to see how much the timing of when the prior polls were taken affect the projection and those with larger modifications may be deemed less reliable. Also, more transparency in how you arrive at your projections adds credibility.

2. Bring back the win tracker, but include a vertical line and explanation for the recent methodology change.

3. Get rid of the Dallas Cowboys blue star for DC on the state graphics.

4. I never cared for the cartogram. Good riddance to it!

See the cartograms athttp://www-personal.umich.edu...

2008-06-17T05:44:00.000-04:00

See the cartograms at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ...maybe you could use?

I expect Michigan to go to McCain, esp. if he pick...

2008-06-17T03:08:00.000-04:00

I expect Michigan to go to McCain, esp. if he picks Romney as his VP.

The Romney name means nothing in Michigan to anyone who wasn't alive in 1966. He didn't serve in Michigan. He did nothing in Michigan - except leave.

Next.

Relevant to this point, see Nate's column of June ...

2008-06-17T00:43:00.000-04:00

Relevant to this point, see Nate's column of June 7, "How the Electoral College Hurts the GOP." (If URL runs off the edge, you can search for this column under the "electoral math" topic heading in the left column here.)
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/how-electoral-college-hurts-gop.html

Hi Isabel, how's it going.I also get 25 electoral ...

2008-06-17T00:14:00.000-04:00

Hi Isabel, how's it going.

I also get 25 electoral votes per 1% popular vote, 25.237 to be more precise.

I disagree with Nate's assessment that the electoral college gives neither candidate an advantage. He says that his regression line crosses the y-axis at 269.3 electoral votes, which means that a 50/50 popular vote translates into about 269.3 electoral votes. Since Obama needs only 269 electoral votes to win the electoral college, this means that Obama wins the electoral college >50% of the time in a 50/50 election, probably somewhere near the 60% that I have estimated elsewhere.

For what it's worth, Ben Schak claims that the ele...

2008-06-16T22:34:00.000-04:00

For what it's worth, Ben Schak claims that the electoral college gives Obama an advantage, based on simulation. He gives some reasonable-sounding arguments why this should be true), basically that McCain wins bigger in his safe states than Obama does in his.

He quotes it in terms of how the popular vote is split versus Obama's win probability, though, so it's hard to directly compare.

(Disclaimer: Schak is a friend of mine.)

Gee from a much earlier post I thought rusty tromb...

2008-06-16T21:42:00.000-04:00

Gee from a much earlier post I thought rusty trombone was going to be McCains running mate!

What's the explanation for the local peak around 1...

2008-06-16T21:37:00.000-04:00

What's the explanation for the local peak around 10 EV in the electoral vote distribution chart? It surely can't correspond to reality - you don't get another peak that size until you get to around 150 EV.

On another issue, is there any chance of displaying your win prediction using the old methodology? I'm assuming the old and new will converge some in a week or two.

Nice analysis. Here's a bit of analysis I was wor...

2008-06-16T21:32:00.000-04:00

Nice analysis. Here's a bit of analysis I was working on to correlate approval ratings of standing presidents to change in parties holding office. Doing a little analysis it is almost a certainty the Obama will be elected the next president.

Analyzing the elections since 1936 when the public was first polled for presidential approval ratings (ARs) EVERY election when a standing president or in some cases 2 presidents with an average approval rating of less than 50% had led to the opposite party winning the white house (0 out of 4 times).

In the same analysis if the standing president has an approval rating over 50% that does not guaranty that the same party wins back the white house. However in this case when the opposing party did win the white house the elections were incredibly close like in 2000, 1968 and 1960.

Change seems to be a major factor in elections particularly after 2 term presidents. Political parties have only returned parties back into power after two term presidencies in 2 out of 5 times.

Standing President(s) AR, Election winner and popular vote difference
2004 Bush 51%, Bush reelected 2.46%.
2000 Clinton 65%, Bush elected but Gore won popular vote 0.51%.
1996 Clinton 59%, Clinton reelected 8.51%.
1992* Bush 35%, Clinton elected 5.56%.
1988 Reagan 55%, Bush elected 7.72%.
1984 Reagan 57%, Reagan reelected by 18.21%.
1980* Carter 39%, Reagan elected 9.74%.
1976* Ford 55% but Nixon 24% (AVG 39.5%), Carter elected 2.06%.
1972 Nixon 63%, Nixon reelected 23.15%.
1968 LBJ 55%, Nixon elected 0.70%.
1964 JFK 66% and LBJ 75% (AVG 70.5%), LBJ elected 22.58%.
1960 Eisenhower 65%, JFK elected 0.17%.
1956 Eisenhower 75%, Eisenhower reelected 15.40%.
1952* Truman 38%, Eisenhower elected 10.85%.
1948 FDR 72% and Truman 55% (AVG 62.5%), Truman elected 4.48%.
1944 FDR 72%, FDR reelected 7.50%.
1940 FDR 64%, FDR reelected 9.96%.
1936 FDR 60%, FDR reelected 24.26%.

*Incumbent(s) average ARs less than 50%

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating