Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2018, 09:19:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  If the US presidential elections had runoff
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: If the US presidential elections had runoff  (Read 554 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,097


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 12, 2018, 06:55:51 pm »

Consider if the elections were decided in the direct popular vote and that if none of the candidates reached 50%, there would be a runoff between the two candidates who had more votes in the first round.
OK, if the voting system was different, there could be other results, other candidates, other parties, but let's keep simple and forget this problem.

Considering the post-WWII elections in which no candidate reached 50%, how would be a runoff?

1948
Truman would win easily. He had 49.55% in the first round. Almost all Wallace voters would have voted for Truman in a runoff. I don't know how Thurmond voters would have voted in a runoff between Truman and Dewey, but there votes would not be necessary.

1960
I don't know how the voters of the minor candidates would have voted, but Kennedy had already a 0.17% advantage

1968
Considering that most of the Wallace voters voted for Nixon in 1972, probably most of them would have voted for Nixon in a runoff against Humphrey

1992
Hard to know. According to polls, most of the Perot voters would have voted for Bush. But when Perot was out of the race, Clinton's lead was bigger. Even if Bush had most of Perot votes, Clinton could have won because he had already a 5.5% lead

1996
Clinton would have won easily. He had already 49.23%. If we add Nader votes, there is almost 50%. Perot votes are not necessary.

2000
If 70% of the Nader voters have voted for Gore in the runoff, Gore would have won even if Bush had all Buchanan votes.

2016
Hard to know. Probably, almost all Jill Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. But we don't know how Gary Johnson voters would have voted. However, Hillary had a 2% lead.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,854


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2018, 07:15:40 pm »

If elections were done by popular vote , it is quite possible that Bush wins the popular vote in 2000(in both round 1 and runoff) as Bush's campaigning strategy would have been different.


Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,357


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2018, 07:27:00 pm »

Also different scenarios. Instant runoff voting or runoff held a month after.


1992 - Instant run off helps Clinton win more states from HW Bush. But a runoff held a month after would make Clinton still win 270 EV's but less compared to an instant runoff if HW Bush had another try.

1996 - Instant run off helps Clinton win Colorado. Runoff held a month after, Clinton wins around 300-320 EV's because of Perot voters and Dole campaigning harder.

2000 - Instant runoff helps Gore win Florida but with a runoff held a month later it becomes a tossup obviously in Florida.

2016 - Instant runoff helps Hillary win the states she needed to win, A Runoff held a month later might have actually helped Hillary because the effect of the comey letter recedes.
Logged

megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,016
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2018, 07:35:12 pm »

remember, campaigning strategy (which states you travel to, where you play ads) affect almost only turnout, not actual margin of victory (cuz elections are nationalized anyway, regardless of how much attention a specific state gets, the people in that state know one candidate just as much as the other).
Logged

Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,539
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2018, 10:31:51 am »

My predictions:

1948
✓ Harry S. Truman (D, inc.): 51.6%
Thomas E. Dewey (R): 48.4%

1960
✓ John F. Kennedy (D): 50.2%
Richard Nixon (R): 49.8%

1968
✓ Richard Nixon (R): 52.1%
Hubert Humphrey (D): 47.9%

1992
✓ Bill Clinton (D): 51.8%
George Bush (R, inc.): 48.2%

1996
✓ Bill Clinton (D, inc.): 55.0%
Bob Dole (R): 45.0%

2000
✓ Al Gore (D): 50.4%
George W. Bush (R): 49.6%

2016
✓ Hillary Clinton (D): 51.2%
Donald Trump (R): 48.8%
Logged

United Arab Emirates Immigrant, naturalized US citizen, resident of wonderful California, devoted liberal Democrat. Any questions?

Endorsements:
- President: Kamala Harris

Congratulations to Governor-elect Gavin Newsom and all other Democrats.



THANK YOU GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO CALIFORNIA.
Let Dogs Survive
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,259
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2018, 01:01:29 pm »

My predictions:

1912
✓ Theodore Roosevelt (P): 50.2%
Woodrow Wilson (D): 49.8%

1916
✓ Woodrow Wilson (D, inc): 51.4%
Charles Hughes (R)Sad

1948
✓ Thomas E. Dewey(R): 50.2%
Harry S. Truman (D, inc.): 49. 8%

1960
✓ John F. Kennedy (D): 51.2%
Richard Nixon (R): 48.8%

1968
✓ Richard Nixon (R): 52.1%
Hubert Humphrey (D): 47.9%


1992
✓ Bill Clinton (D): 52.5%
George Bush (R, inc.): 47.5%

1996
✓ Bill Clinton (D, inc.): 55.0%
Bob Dole (R): 45.0%

2000
✓ Al Gore (D): 50.4%
George W. Bush (R): 49.6%


2016
Depends which news story breaks in between the nights.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 01:57:37 pm by L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again »Logged

Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,854


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2018, 01:28:53 pm »

My predictions:

1948
✓ Thomas E. Dewey(R): 50.2%
Harry S. Truman (D, inc.): 49. 8%

1960
✓ John F. Kennedy (D): 51.2%
Richard Nixon (R): 48.8%

1968
✓ Richard Nixon (R): 52.1%
Hubert Humphrey (D): 47.9%


1980
✓ Ronald Reagan (R): 53.4%
Jimmy Carter (D, inc.): 46.6%


1992
✓ Bill Clinton (D): 52.5%
George Bush (R, inc.): 47.5%

1996
✓ Bill Clinton (D, inc.): 55.0%
Bob Dole (R): 45.0%

2000
✓ Al Gore (D): 50.4%
George W. Bush (R): 49.6%


2016
Depends which news story breaks in between the nights.


Reagan won over 50% of the vote in round one
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1
Chateaubriand Pact
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,486
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2018, 01:33:03 pm »

If elections were done by popular vote , it is quite possible that Bush wins the popular vote in 2000(in both round 1 and runoff) as Bush's campaigning strategy would have been different.




Also because the networks couldn't have called the race for Gore early and cost Bush thousands or millions of votes, as they did.
Logged

Non-partisan conservative. Most familiar with New Jersey and Massachusetts politics.

Let Dogs Survive
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,259
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2018, 01:58:43 pm »

My predictions:

1948
✓ Thomas E. Dewey(R): 50.2%
Harry S. Truman (D, inc.): 49. 8%

1960
✓ John F. Kennedy (D): 51.2%
Richard Nixon (R): 48.8%

1968
✓ Richard Nixon (R): 52.1%
Hubert Humphrey (D): 47.9%


1980
✓ Ronald Reagan (R): 53.4%
Jimmy Carter (D, inc.): 46.6%


1992
✓ Bill Clinton (D): 52.5%
George Bush (R, inc.): 47.5%

1996
✓ Bill Clinton (D, inc.): 55.0%
Bob Dole (R): 45.0%

2000
✓ Al Gore (D): 50.4%
George W. Bush (R): 49.6%


2016
Depends which news story breaks in between the nights.


Reagan won over 50% of the vote in round one

...Brain fart...adjusted to include Wilson, he never won a majority either time.
Logged

buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,097


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2018, 05:14:25 pm »

Also different scenarios. Instant runoff voting or runoff held a month after.


1992 - Instant run off helps Clinton win more states from HW Bush. But a runoff held a month after would make Clinton still win 270 EV's but less compared to an instant runoff if HW Bush had another try.

1996 - Instant run off helps Clinton win Colorado. Runoff held a month after, Clinton wins around 300-320 EV's because of Perot voters and Dole campaigning harder.

2000 - Instant runoff helps Gore win Florida but with a runoff held a month later it becomes a tossup obviously in Florida.

2016 - Instant runoff helps Hillary win the states she needed to win, A Runoff held a month later might have actually helped Hillary because the effect of the comey letter recedes.

Nice that you remembered. A runoff 3 or 4 weeks after the first round is another election. Enough time for new scandals. In countries in which there is runoff, one candidate usually doesn't keep in the runoff 100% of the vote he had in the first round. It's usually something like 95%. I ignored this only in order to make simpler.
I also did not consider that Ralph Nader could have higher vote in the first round if there were runoff.
Logged
Ἅιδης
Hades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,624


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2018, 08:53:27 am »

Nice that you remembered. A runoff 3 or 4 weeks after the first round is another election. Enough time for new scandals. In countries in which there is runoff, one candidate usually doesn't keep in the runoff 100% of the vote he had in the first round. It's usually something like 95%. I ignored this only in order to make simpler.

IIRC, the Democratic senatorial candidate for Georgia almost won a majority in 1992, but nevertheless failed in the runoff to win.
Logged

Ohio ain't Safe R
bagelman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,094
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.26

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2018, 07:26:24 pm »

I had the same idea a while back, but my system would have it state-by-state - given how US presidential elections are technically structured as a bunch of statewide elections under the electoral college. Other statewide election, and congressional election, would be subject to the same rule. The US would be more likely to adopt this system than it would a more traditional all-in-one runoff a unitary state might do.

Consider if the elections were decided in the direct popular vote and that if none of the candidates reached 50%, there would be a runoff between the two candidates who had more votes in the first round.
OK, if the voting system was different, there could be other results, other candidates, other parties, but let's keep simple and forget this problem.

Considering the post-WWII elections in which no candidate reached 50%, how would be a runoff?

1948
Truman would win easily. He had 49.55% in the first round. Almost all Wallace voters would have voted for Truman in a runoff. I don't know how Thurmond voters would have voted in a runoff between Truman and Dewey, but there votes would not be necessary.

1960
I don't know how the voters of the minor candidates would have voted, but Kennedy had already a 0.17% advantage

1968
Considering that most of the Wallace voters voted for Nixon in 1972, probably most of them would have voted for Nixon in a runoff against Humphrey

1992
Hard to know. According to polls, most of the Perot voters would have voted for Bush. But when Perot was out of the race, Clinton's lead was bigger. Even if Bush had most of Perot votes, Clinton could have won because he had already a 5.5% lead

1996
Clinton would have won easily. He had already 49.23%. If we add Nader votes, there is almost 50%. Perot votes are not necessary.

2000
If 70% of the Nader voters have voted for Gore in the runoff, Gore would have won even if Bush had all Buchanan votes.

2016
Hard to know. Probably, almost all Jill Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. But we don't know how Gary Johnson voters would have voted. However, Hillary had a 2% lead.

1948:



LA and TN are both Thurmond vs. Truman. Truman almost certainly wins.

1960:



MS is Kennedy vs. Unpledged, making it impossible for Nixon to win. Indeed, Nixon needs to win both normal runoffs and have Kennedy lose against Unpledged in order to force the election to congress, and there's no reason for him to bother as the Democrats will elect Kennedy/Johnson anyway. Nixon concedes.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 07:28:11 pm by bagelman »Logged
Ohio ain't Safe R
bagelman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,094
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.26

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2018, 07:51:19 pm »

1968





Purple: Humphery vs. Nixon

Green: Nixon vs. Wallace

Yellow: Humphery vs. Wallace


1992 would be Clinton vs. Bush in all but two statewide elections and one CD. Arkansas would be the only state without a runoff after already voting Clinton >50%. The Maine statewide ballot would be Clinton vs. Perot, and those in the second CD would just get that question. However, those in the first CD get a ballot with that and the normal Clinton vs. Bush runoff. Also, those in NE-03 would be able to vote in the statewide runoff and Bush vs. Perot for their CD.

I agree that 1996 would be an easy Clinton win.
Logged
Ohio ain't Safe R
bagelman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,094
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.26

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2018, 07:57:32 pm »

2000:



Most Nader voters would indeed vote Gore, but polls showed Bush further ahead back in October, so it's not like it's a Safe D runoff.

2016:



One last thing before I'm done:

1976



Would have a viable runoff, although still likely D.
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,703


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2018, 08:02:34 pm »

1980 would have had a runoff with a result not yet determined in bagelmans scenario, since although Reagan won a majority in the NPV, he had not won a majority in enough states to have those states total 270.
Logged

I never use toss ups

VERY EXCITED FOR THE UPCOMING DEMOCRATIC WAVE OF 2020
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines