Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 09:14:55 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  trends 1960-2000 revealed in close elections
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: trends 1960-2000 revealed in close elections  (Read 1110 times)
zorkpolitics
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1036
United States


View Profile
« on: June 08, 2005, 08:57:23 pm »
Ignore

The US is a Federal Republic, Constitutionally designed to balance the needs of the small states v big states, as well as sectional interests.  If this is still relevant, then one would expect a political alignment to be evident among groupings of the states.  I’ve looked at the 4 closest elections in the last 50 yrs, which I think illuminate political differences,  and evaluated them by state size and region.  The elections used for this analysis are 1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000, all 4 elections were closer than 2% in popular vote.

First looking at states by size reveals a pretty stable situation:
The 11 largest states (>14 EV) have consistently remained a Democratic stronghold, the 27 smallest states (<8 EV) have been a Republican base, while the 13 mid-sized states have swung to the winning party in each:

                                 1960   1968   1976   2000
Big states        Dem %   72     49     55   66
Small states     Rep %    53     67     69   69
Medium states Rep%     46     56     31   64

Clearly no realignment evident here, but clear evidence that state size does make a political difference, and the Electoral College provides a voice for these differences, that would be lost in an election in which the popular vote determined the winner.

Next I looked at the US when divided into 5 regions: Northeast (DC to Me to OH), the South (VA to FL to TX to OK), the Midwest (IN to MN to IA), the West (SD to ID to AZ to NM) and the West Coast (HI to WA to CA).

Again clear regional differences are also apparent.  The Northeast has remained a Democratic stronghold, while the West has remained a Republican stronghold.  The Midwest has been relatively evenly split.  But there is also clear evidence of a realignment.  The South moved from a highly Democratic region to a 100% Republican region, while the opposite trend occurred on the West Coast,  it flipped from highly Republican to 100% Democratic.  :
                               1960   1968   1976   2000
Northeast    Dem %    81    72     69   84
South        Dem %      62      52     88   0
Midwest    Dem %       44     12   26    32
West        Rep %        74   100   100   90
West Coast    Dem %   6   22     6    100

So overall the Electoral College seems to be still fullfilling the purpose for which it was designed:  size and regional differences remain and the Electoral College gives a voice to these state differences, that would be lost in a Popularly elected President
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 07:53:33 pm by zorkpolitics »Logged

"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments" C.M. Bowra
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9824


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2005, 04:02:11 am »
Ignore

interesting analysis zorkpolitics
Logged

Faster than a legally fired bullet.
More powerful than railroaded legislation.
Able to leap giant bureaucracy in a single bound.

It's an anarchist.  It's a free marketer.

It's... It's...        Super Libertarian
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26829


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2005, 01:12:33 pm »
Ignore

What are the percentages of? Is it % of the popular vote, % of the electoral vote or % of the states? And how can Carter be only at 69% in the South since he won every state except Virginia and Oklahoma there?
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
zorkpolitics
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2005, 08:25:30 pm »
Ignore

What are the percentages of? Is it % of the popular vote, % of the electoral vote or % of the states? And how can Carter be only at 69% in the South since he won every state except Virginia and Oklahoma there?

% of EV, after all that is al that matters, Constitutionally
Logged

"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments" C.M. Bowra
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26829


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2005, 08:13:20 am »
Ignore

What are the percentages of? Is it % of the popular vote, % of the electoral vote or % of the states? And how can Carter be only at 69% in the South since he won every state except Virginia and Oklahoma there?

% of EV, after all that is al that matters, Constitutionally

That's what I thought...but then Carter must be more than 69% of the South, if I understand correctly your definition of it. I get it to be 93% pf the Southern electoral vote for Carter.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
zorkpolitics
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2005, 07:56:39 pm »
Ignore

Thanks, your right Carter won 88% of the South (I also include OK in the South) I had an error on my spread sheet and I updated the original post
Logged

"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments" C.M. Bowra
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines