Talk Elections

People say Missouri is the perfect bellewether state as it has only voted for the loser once in the past 100 years (1956).  I've noticed that the row of states that Missouri is in (Minnesota through Lousiana) is also a bellwether area.  The majority of these states have gone to the winner of Presidential election since 1900 (except in 1968 because of Wallace, but Nixon still beat Humphrey in the count 2-1)  What do you think of this trend?

I don't know.  Considering that Kerry could have very probably won the 2004 election without winning Missouri, the same situation could very likely happen in 2008 as well and it would lose it's status.

I think as the south has become more conservative, the Bellwether Line has shifted more upwards. At this point, I think Iowa qualifies much more than Missouri. Eventually, I think, it will be Minnesota. Then we may have to start holding elections in Canada.

Delaware is a good Bellewether state.

Actually, while Missouri is an excellent bellweather (10 of the last 10), and Arkansas and Louisiana are very good (9 of the last 10), Iowa is only fair (7 of the last 10) and Minnesota poor (only five of the last 10).

No, I'm saying there' s trend that shows that whoever wins the majority of the five states from Minnesota to Louisiana.  This is true in every election since 1900 except 1968 because of Wallace (though Nixon did beat Humphrey two states to one).

that's pretty amazing, but unlikely to continue much longer if there is a democrat win, Minnesota is moderate democrat; Iowa a swing state; Missouri and Arkansas moderate Republican, and Louisiana a firm but not rock solid GOP state. I think the southwest is where it's at. You win 3 of CO, NM, AZ and NV and you win, i'd say. I'll just go oand check that, but even if it's not a past trend, it's a likely future one.

Ah... so the new area to look for shall be called the "Utah Bottleneck"

yep. EVERY ELECTION since AZ and NM joined, if you've wonm three of AZ, NM, NV and CO you've won.

In 1960, Kennedy won NV and NM, whilst Nixon won CO and AZ, but otherwise the winning candidate has recieved three states, and every time a candidate recieved three states, they won.

Not 1976.

damn, didn't spot that. Still, all but ONCE since NM and AZ joined. That's a pretty important thing, especially considering it's ingreasinly looking like a battleground in the future.

The problem is, we don't know what future trends are until they happen.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (maybe you'll listen this time round), George W Bush is not allowed to seek re-election in 2008. Every President seems to have a distinctive pattern of support and we won't know what Dubya's was until he's gone so to speak... kinda like Bubba.

would you accept that the MN-LA row is a less lkely bellweather then the southwest?

Someone did that study that showed that the centre of America, in population terms, was in a state won by the winner of the election in every election except one since Washington.

Not true. In 1916 the mean center of population was almost certainly Indiana, but Wilson lost it. From 1810 to 1850, the mean center of population was in Virginia, but Harrison lost it in '40 and Quincy lost it in '24. The median center of population has been in Indiana since 1950.

Not so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_U.S._population

Mean does not equal median.  Gustaf [edit: ahem, I mean thefactor] was probably saying that the intersection of the median lattitude and the median longitude has been in Indiana in every census from 1950 onwards.  In other words, half of the Americans counted in each of those census have lived north, south, east and west of a point in Indiana.  Everyone who lived northeast, southeast, northwest and southwest of that point moving to Maine, Florida, southern California and Washington would have no impact on the median center of population, while it would definitely have some impact on the mean center of population.

Kevin

Gustaf was talking mean.  Thefactor inexplicably switched to median at the end of his post, but I did not read it (as I made the understandable assumption that people to do suddenly and abruptly change their topic in the middle of their posts) as such, so I posted the link to tell him that no, the mean center of population has not been in Indiana since 1950.

Gustaf wrote "centre of population" (sic).   The Census Bureau defines both a "mean center of population" and a "median center of population".

It is not clear which measure Gustaf was referring to, since it is not true that the center of population by either measure has always been in a state carried by the presidential winner.

Since the median center of population has indeed been in Indiana since 1950 (and also 1900 and 1910), then the clear implication is that thefactor was covering both cases, whichever Gustaf meant.

centre is an acceptable substitute for center, jim. center is an acceptable substitute for centre.

Center is an inacceptable substitute for centre. :P

Stop saying "Gustaf says"... ;)

It's not ME...someone else on the forum wrote about this maybe a year ago. The definition was, IIRC, the intersection point between two lines dividing the US into west/east and north/south halves, population-wise. According to the person writing it, this was Missouri for most of recent times and originally in Maryland.

Nope, that's the definition for the median, which is still east of the Mississippi. The location you give is correct for the mean. I remember the thread...the discussion here is very much like the one back then. The notion is false, btw. :)

Here are the centers of population as defined by the US Census Bureau:

Median Center of Population (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/medianctr.pdf)

A curiosity is the loop back in the first half of the 20th century, while the mean continued to move eastward.  The NS median latitude is approaching the San Francisco area, while EW median longitude is approach the Chicago area.  Both will slow the southwestward progress of the median.

Mean Center of Population - Follow the Money (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/meanctr.pdf)

I would expect the median lines to more closely reflect sectional political differences.

Right. In any case, it's still a pretty remarkable phenomenon. Since 1840, the state with the mean center of population has gone with the winner in all except for 1916, which was kind of a strange election because Wilson narrowly won on the basis of his incumbency, which he only had in the first place because of Roosevelt's ultra-successful third-party challenge in 1912... probably the most successful "third party" challenge since 1860, at least.

About the 1910-1930 loopback... the closing of the frontier, urbanization, and immigration all probably contributed. This was the period when northeastern cities were the most dominant in terms of their percentage of the national population.

Before 1930, there was clearly a gradual northward movement of population, again due to both immigration and internal migration, since the south had been devastated so much economically by the Civil War. The New Deal I think played a role in jumpstarting true industrialization in the south and since then the population center has been moving in that direction. That's a case where being in the electoral majority translated into clear economic gains for a region.

1788-1808 Maryland.  In 1800 when the electoral votes were split (Maryland usually elected its electors by district), Jefferson had a bare majority of the popular vote.

1812-1852 Virginia.   Went for favorite son Crawford in 1824.  Voted for Van Buren in 1840, and Cass in 1848

1856 (Virginia or Ohio).  The mean center crossed the Ohio River into Ohio between 1850 and 1860.  Fremont carrried Ohio in 1856

1860-1876.  Ohio.  No misses.

1880 Kentucky (just south of Cincinnati, Ohio)).  Hancock carried Kentucky

1884-1940.  Indiana Hughes in 1916  It helps that Indiana was slightly more Democrat than other NW states such that Cleveland carried it in 1884 and 1892, but not 1888.

1944-1976.  Illinois  Ford in 1976

1980-2004.  Missouri.   No misses.

6 or 7 misses in 55 elections.  Has any single state done better?

1/2 of the population is within 676 miles of the 2000 median center of population.   

This includes everything east of the Mississippi except Florida south of Gainesville; extreme eastern Maryland (Ocean City); Delaware, New Jersey, and New England; all but the eastern edge of Pennsylvania (Chester County but not Delaware County, Allentown but not Bethlehem, Wilkes-Barre but not Scranton); and New York east of roughly Binghamton and Rome.

West of the Mississipi: Louisiana except the extreme SW corner (Lake Charles); Arkansas; Missouri; Iowa; Minnesota except the northwest (roughly from International Falls to just south of the MN-ND-SD intersection; less than 50 miles of eastern South Dakota; Nebraska east of Grand Island; Kansas east of Hutchison; Oklahoma east of just west of OKC; northeastern Texas, including the NE suburbs of Dallas, Sherman-Denison, Rusk, and Lufkin.

 Circular Area Profiles  (http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/websas/caps.html)

That's not the point.  A lot of other peopel could have one the race without Missouri.  Missouri simply tends to side with the winner.  As Missoui goes, so goes the rest of America.  Missouri also has a tendency to overstate the majority of the winning candidate, which I would say acctually improves it's status as a bellewether, because it will swing more than a lot of other states to hand its EV's to the winning candidate.

I too have noticed the potential of using the MIMIL states in presidential races.  In fact, an alternative primary proposal that I once drew up proposed that, rather than simply have Iowa go first, the MIMAL states should all go first on the same day, thus obtaining a better idea of what voters all over America really want.

The state containing the mean center of population appears to have been a  better bellwether than any fixed state.

The mean center state has missed 7 elections (if the center had crossed into Ohio by 1856) or 6 (if the center was still in western Virginia in 1856).

No state east of the Mississippi has missed 7 or fewer elections.  There are 11 western states (plus the District of Columbia) that have missed 7 or fewer elections, but they have participated in fewer elections:

California (first election 1852, 7 misses in 39 tries, 82% right, 3 for center).   Since California became a state, the mean center state has only missed 3 times, 1880 (KY for Hancock), 1916 (IN for Hughes), and 1976 (IL for Ford).

Nevada (1864, 7/36, 81%, 3 for center).

Montana (1892, 6/29, 83%, 2)

Wyoming (1892, 6/29, 83%, 2)

Idaho (1892, 7/29, 76%, 2)

Utah (1896, 6/28, 79%, 2)

Oklahoma (1908, 5/25, 80%, 2)

New Mexico (1912, 2/24, 92%, 2)

New Mexico is the only state to have a better percentage than the center state, and has matched its performance since statehood.

Arizona (1912, 4/24, 83%, 2)

Alaska (1960, 4/12, 67%, 1)

Hawaii (1960, 5/12, 58%, 1)

District of Columbia (1964, 7/11, 36%, 1)

Hmm, very interesting. Especially since it's mean and not median.

ive found that peoria county illinois votes nearly the same as the nation as a whole.

although kerry did win peoria, by less than 100 votes.

I think that place (as well as Illinois) is trending liberal...and not surprisingly losing electoral votes in the process.