![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.9){kind=small}
George Bush and Republicans are claiming a decisive victory in Tuesday's election. They point to the fact that he won a majority of the popular votes as well as the electoral votes. They breathe sighs of relief at not having to repeat the counting fiasco of the 2000 election and see this "decisive victory" as evidence that our democracy is functioning well and smoothly again. They say the people have spoken clearly and unmistakably chosen four more years of Bush.
I find these bold declarations shocking.
First, the mechanisms of democracy were not functioning well at all. There's a database of reported problems at voteprotect.org — just look at the huge lists of problems in Cleveland or New Orleans. There were widespread reports of malfunctioning machines, problems with provisional ballots, and absentee ballots not arriving on time. There were incidents of voter suppression and intimidation, polling stations opening very late in the day, and insufficient machines being delivered to polling stations, all in predominantly minority neighbourhoods. And we all know that there were major discrepancies between the exit polls and the results — discrepancies larger than the margins of victory in key swing states.
Unless there was a systematic, coordinated effort by voters to lie at the exit polls, something was wrong in Ohio. As Greg Palast wrote, "At 1:05 am Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. ... Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state."
Louisiana was an unqualified disaster: according to Joe Hall who spent the day taking reports of election problems, "Most (if not all) of the AVC Advantage machines in New Orleans (Orleans Parish) were failing. ... We had attorneys in the field file a request ... to force the county to ... print paper ballots to accommodate all voters. It was denied, despite the fact that people had been waiting in lines for seven hours in some places." ELECTronic 1242 machines were failing "left and right" in Columbus, Ohio and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Here's another report from a pollworker in Alameda, and another account of the serious problems in Ohio.
Second, even if the results were perfectly accurate, 51% does not constitute an overwhelming majority. It is a razor-thin victory. In fact, this was the smallest margin of victory by which a president has ever been re-elected in the history of the United States. I spent the afternoon collecting data from various sources on past elections to verify this fact. (It is surprisingly difficult to find all these numbers.)
Votes are counted in thousands (given the margin of error and the discrepancies among the different sources i used, it didn't seem justified to report significance down to single votes). VAP stands for "Voting Age Population". The bold green rows are years that the president was re-elected; the italic red rows are years that the president was defeated by a challenger.
See all preceding years since 1789.
| Year | Winner | Votes | % Votes | % VAP | EVs | Margin | Opponent | Votes | % Votes | % VAP | EVs | Voters | % VAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1900 | McKinley (R) | 7218 | 51.7% | 292 | 6.9% | Bryan (D-P) | 6256 | 44.8% | 155 | 13970 | |||
| 1904 | Roosevelt (R) | 7627 | 56.4% | 336 | 18.8% | Parker (D) | 5083 | 37.6% | 140 | 13519 | |||
| 1908 | Taft (R) | 7676 | 51.6% | 321 | 8.5% | Bryan (D) | 6407 | 43.0% | 162 | 14883 | |||
| 1912 | Wilson (D) | 6293 | 41.8% | 435 | 14.4% | Roosevelt (P) | 4120 | 27.4% | 88 | 15041 | |||
| 1916 | Wilson (D) | 9126 | 49.2% | 277 | 3.1% | Hughes (R) | 8547 | 46.1% | 254 | 18533 | |||
| 1920 | Harding (R) | 16171 | 60.3% | 404 | 26.2% | Cox (D) | 9140 | 34.1% | 127 | 26798 | |||
| 1924 | Coolidge (R) | 15718 | 54.1% | 382 | 25.2% | Davis (D) | 8386 | 28.8% | 136 | 29076 | |||
| 1928 | Hoover (R) | 21373 | 58.1% | 444 | 17.3% | Smith (D) | 15000 | 40.8% | 87 | 36790 | |||
| 1932 | Roosevelt (D) | 22825 | 57.4% | 472 | 17.8% | Hoover (R) | 15758 | 39.6% | 59 | 39747 | |||
| 1936 | Roosevelt (D) | 27748 | 60.8% | 523 | 24.2% | Landon (R) | 16680 | 36.5% | 8 | 45642 | |||
| 1940 | Roosevelt (D) | 27263 | 54.7% | 449 | 9.9% | Willkie (R) | 22306 | 44.8% | 82 | 49840 | |||
| 1944 | Roosevelt (D) | 25594 | 53.4% | 432 | 7.5% | Dewey (R) | 22005 | 45.9% | 99 | 47967 | |||
| 1948 | Truman (D) | 24106 | 49.5% | 303 | 4.4% | Dewey (R) | 21970 | 45.1% | 189 | 48692 | |||
| 1952 | Eisenhower (R) | 33936 | 55.1% | 442 | 10.8% | Stevenson (D) | 27315 | 44.4% | 89 | 61551 | |||
| 1956 | Eisenhower (R) | 35585 | 57.4% | 457 | 15.4% | Stevenson (D) | 26030 | 42.0% | 73 | 62025 | |||
| 1960 | Kennedy (D) | 34200 | 49.7% | 31.3% | 303 | 0.2% | Nixon (R) | 34088 | 49.6% | 31.2% | 219 | 68783 | 63.0% |
| 1964 | Johnson (D) | 42957 | 61.0% | 37.7% | 486 | 22.4% | Goldwater (R) | 27149 | 38.5% | 23.8% | 52 | 70443 | 61.7% |
| 1968 | Nixon (R) | 31759 | 43.6% | 26.4% | 301 | 0.9% | Humphrey (D) | 31136 | 42.7% | 25.9% | 191 | 72906 | 60.6% |
| 1972 | Nixon (R) | 47169 | 59.9% | 33.5% | 520 | 22.9% | McGovern (D) | 29171 | 37.1% | 20.7% | 17 | 78727 | 55.9% |
| 1976 | Carter (D) | 40826 | 50.1% | 26.8% | 297 | 2.1% | Ford (R) | 39148 | 48.0% | 25.7% | 240 | 81556 | 53.5% |
| 1980 | Reagan (R) | 43902 | 50.7% | 26.7% | 489 | 9.7% | Carter (D) | 35484 | 41.0% | 21.6% | 49 | 86515 | 52.6% |
| 1984 | Reagan (R) | 54455 | 58.8% | 31.2% | 525 | 18.2% | Mondale (D) | 37577 | 40.6% | 21.5% | 13 | 92653 | 53.1% |
| 1988 | Bush (R) | 47946 | 52.3% | 26.2% | 426 | 7.6% | Dukakis (D) | 41016 | 44.8% | 22.4% | 111 | 91595 | 50.1% |
| 1992 | Clinton (D) | 44908 | 43.0% | 23.7% | 370 | 5.6% | Bush (R) | 39102 | 37.5% | 20.6% | 168 | 104405 | 55.1% |
| 1996 | Clinton (D) | 45591 | 47.3% | 23.2% | 379 | 8.1% | Dole (R) | 37816 | 39.2% | 19.2% | 159 | 96456 | 49.1% |
| 2000 | Bush (R) | 50456 | 47.9% | 24.1% | 271 | -0.5% | Gore (D) | 50997 | 48.4% | 24.4% | 266 | 105405 | 50.4% |
| 2004 | Bush (R) | 58979 | 51.1% | 27.1% | 279 | 3.1% | Kerry (D) | 55384 | 48.0% | 25.4% | 252 | 115428 | 53.0% |
Sources: Federal Register data for 1789 to 2000, ICPSR election results for 1824 to 1972, FEC VAP and turnout figures for 1960 to 1996, FEC election results for 2000, Census 2000, Washington Post results for 2004, FEC VAP figures for 2004.
The central orange column shows the margins of victory measured as a percentage of the popular vote. This year, Bush won by 3.1%, which is the smallest bold number in that column. You can also see that the percentage of the voting-age population that voted for Kerry is the highest for any defeated challenger in the years with data (since 1960); based on the rest of the popular vote percentages, it's likely that a larger fraction of eligible voters voted for Kerry than any defeated challenger in history.
There is something seriously wrong when a country is so polarized that an election alienates 49% of the population. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work. But that is just what has happened recently, twice.
I am amazed and puzzled by this coincidence. How is it that the country is divided into two segments with such wildly opposing views that each sees the other as essentially insane? It doesn't make sense to me that this should be possible. Yet it's true, and even more incredibly, the country is divided almost exactly in half. Why is it 50-50 and not 80-20? Election theorists will say that any plurality system tends toward a two-party duopoly and that in a two-party system both parties head for the center, splitting the vote exactly in half. But George Bush is not a centrist! He is not moderate by any stretch of the imagination, not even to Republicans. So how did this happen?
2004-11-05 04:56 pm UTC
one theory
For one idea about why politicians don't head for the center, see:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/busin
which summarizes a working paper by a Harvard econ professor:
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/h
2004-11-05 08:14 pm UTC
Re: one theory
There may have been an example of this during the debates. During the second debate, Bush mentioned the Dred Scott case. I went "huh?"But apparently, to abortion foes, that translates to "I will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade".
2004-11-05 06:45 pm UTC
Here are turnout figures for 1924-2000; slightly different from what you posted.
http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/pre
Also, the 1916 election seems to also have had a 3.1% margin.
2004-11-05 07:03 pm UTC
a few quick thoughts
How is it that the country is divided into two segments with such wildly opposing views that each sees the other as essentially insane?i have been wondering this myself. i have *no* idea.
yep, a shady election, all the way around.
He is not moderate by any stretch of the imagination, not even to Republicans.
quick question: how do you think republicans would decribe him (conservative/liberal/etc...)?
also, republicans gained more seats in the house and they are pointing to that, too, as part of their 'mandate'.
i would like to say, tho, (and im not saying there werent serious problems with voting) that the exit polls arent necessarily the greatest check. (i know --- we have nothing else.) but still -- i'm sure the (supposed) result was within the margin of error, no? (you might also note cnn leans a little more left than right.)
*hugs*
2004-11-07 04:29 am UTC
may i suggest you post the explainations of the bolding, colors, vat stuff, etc on the expanded page as well as put on that page your sources? then maybe put a paragraph or two on that page with your analysis/ thoughts? that link would be more palatable to people instead of the lj post.
i think this page could circulate around the internet more. its really some amazing work there.
anyway, just a suggestion
2004-11-07 04:29 am UTC
2004-11-07 05:32 am UTC
Feel free to pass around the URL: http://zesty.ca/lj/elections.html
2004-11-07 07:07 am UTC
on os 9.2 mozilla it's fine though.
anyway, i'm hoping this work you did gets passed around. some good stuff there.
Anonymous
2005-07-26 01:40 pm UTC
1996 election
I noticed you used re-elected Presidents as your criteris to bash Bush, but that is OK. I noticed that in 1996 52.7% of the voters voted against Clinton. It appears to me that you ignored all votes for independant snd 3rd party candidates in making your assumptions. For example, you show the margin of victory for Clinton as 8.1% over Dole, but you ignored all votes for independant snd 3rd party candidates.Pretty clever, but entirely dishonest.
2005-07-26 08:17 pm UTC
Re: 1996 election
The data used is consistent in every case: the number of votes for the president and the number of votes for the challenger. The difference is the margin of victory. There's nothing dishonest about that. That's what i said i was measuring and that's waht i measured.In the United States, votes against don't count. Only votes in favour count.