Should Dave change the 1976 "What-if"?

[pragmatic liberal]

On the 1976 results page, Dave's "What If?" says...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I can tell, a much smaller swing is actually necessary: Ohio and, instead of Wisconsin, Hawaii. If Ford had won both Ohio and Hawaii, he would have carried the Electoral College 270-268. Carter only carried Hawaii with 7,372 more votes than Ford, so a swing of just 3,687 votes in Hawaii, plus 5,559 votes in Ohio would have flipped the results.

Part of the problem is that one Ford elector in real-life voted for Reagan. Had he done so in this alternate scenario, then the EC would have deadlocked 269-268-1 and the election would have gone to the House. But it's doubtful that any of Ford's electors would have defected if there was any room for error.

If that is the concern, then a swing of Ohio and Mississippi would still have gotten Ford a victory and with a smaller swing than Wisconsin. Carter only won Mississippi by 14,463 votes, meaning a swing of 7,232 votes in Mississippi plus 5,559 in Ohio would have given Ford the election.

So why is the What-If for 1976 based on a swing of Ohio and Wisconsin?

[minionofmidas]

Smaller swing. More votes, but smaller swing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Smaller swing. More votes, but smaller swing.

And that is most important, since the "less vote technic" supposes that the swing happens in only one state, which seems quite difficult.

[Nym90]

Good point, but yeah, it's because of the smaller percentage swing necessary with Ohio and Wisconsin.

Same thing for 2004; there's a combination with a smaller swing of votes than just flipping Ohio that gives Kerry the win (can't remember what it is off hand but I know it involved Nevada) but it results in a larger percentage swing. It makes sense to go with the smallest percentage swing necessary to flip the results, rather than the smallest total vote swing.

However, I recall pointing out to Dave once that there is a 1968 scenario that requires less of a percentage swing than the one that he has posted, but he never responded to me or changed it.

[minionofmidas]

Same thing for 2004; there's a combination with a smaller swing of votes than just flipping Ohio that gives Kerry the win (can't remember what it is off hand but I know it involved Nevada) but it results in a larger percentage swing. It makes sense to go with the smallest percentage swing necessary to flip the results, rather than the smallest total vote swing.

With Nevada? Can't find it. Flipping just Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico gives a tie (ignoring the senile Minnesota elector) and involves quite a lot fewer votes, but adding another state - any other state - takes you above the Ohio margin.
The only combination I can find that involves marginally fewer votes than flipping Ohio is Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico (115,572 vs 118,601). Bush's Nevada margin was larger than Iowa's or New Mexico's. There are several states with slightly smaller margins than Colorado's - Montana, both Dakotas, West Virginia - but none of these allow you to remove one of the three really close states (IA NM NV), and thus all require slightly more votes than flipping Ohio.

[Nym90]

Ah, yes, that's it, Lewis, thanks.