Is the center of population the bellwether?

[bnewchurch]

Dave's analysis showing Missouri as the bellwether state for every election from 1960 through 2000 was very interesting.  Missouri always picked the winner.

The country's mean population center is also in southern Missouri. Lines running to the east & west and to the north & south of that point divide the population in half each way. See http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/meanpop.pdf

I wondered if that meant that the population center state, as it has steadily moved to the southwest since Washington's election, has always been the bellwether.  

Using this site, I found that the candidate who won at least the majority of the electoral votes of the state at the country's population center was elected president 88.88 % of the time. The pop. center state did not pick the winner in 1824, 1840, 1880, 1916, 1940, or 1976 but did every other election.

Exceptional circumstances may explain some of those exceptions to the general rule:

1824 was a four-way competitive race

1880 the pop. center was barely in Kentucky. Ohio, to which the center later moved, picked the winner.

1972 Ford, who won the pop. center state, was the only incumbent in history who had not been elected either president or vice president.

An 88.88 percent correlation between the pop. center state and the winner seems to be very high.  Does anyone know how it compares with other measures?  Have most states been right most of the time?  Which states have picked losers most of the time?

[JohnFKennedy]

that is really interesting.

[Gustaf]

That is cool...makes sense too. Good analysis!

And welcome to the forum.

[JohnFKennedy]

the number of independents is really growing now.....

[Gustaf]

the number of independents is really growing now.....

Yeah, the next fantasy election could be interesting...only about 47% of the visitors to this site are Dems or Reps, as a matter of fact.

[JohnFKennedy]

have you really gone through all the users???

if so, you have wayyyyyyyyy too much free time.

[Gustaf]

have you really gone through all the users???

if so, you have wayyyyyyyyy too much free time.

Lol...no I haven't, I just checked Leip's statistics of the visitors to the page...

[opebo]

Interestingly, though it doesn't show up on your linked map, the 1980 center of population used to be on the farm next to my dad's.  I suspect recent revisions may have more accurately located it?  It was between the 1980 and the 1990 spots on the linked map.  USA Today came out and put a newpaper vending box right on the spot.  Its still there.  The man who owns the farm is an odd duck, I'm not sure if he would vote, but like all landowners, his politics are very much to the right.  

ot that this means anything as any random point in largely empty America is likely to be on land owned by some rural right-winger.

[dunn]

.

1972 Ford, who won the pop. center state, was the only incumbent in history who had not been elected either president or vice president.

76' u mean

[bnewchurch]

Yes, 1976 was the election that Ford won the center but lost the usa.

[minionofmidas]

The bit about the lines is wrong though. That's the definition of the median center of population, which if I remember correctly is still East of the Mississippi, in Southern Illinois somewhere.
The mean center of population is where the country's center of gravity would be if everybody weighed the same and nothing except people had any weight at all. In other words, a person's exact distance to the center plays a role in determining the mean, but not the median. If somebody moves from Kansas to North California, it effects the mean but not the median.

[Gustaf]

The bit about the lines is wrong though. That's the definition of the median center of population, which if I remember correctly is still East of the Mississippi, in Southern Illinois somewhere.
The mean center of population is where the country's center of gravity would be if everybody weighed the same and nothing except people had any weight at all. In other words, a person's exact distance to the center plays a role in determining the mean, but not the median. If somebody moves from Kansas to North California, it effects the mean but not the median.

Why not? If I remember correctly what a median is, it would be affected by the number of people on each side, so to speak.I mean (no pun intended...), if you moved the whole of Kansas to north Carolina how could it not affect the median?  

[minionofmidas]

Because Kansas and California are both to the West of the Median. How far removed from it does not matter. It affects the mean center (ie, the average), though.
Of course it gets a bit more complicated because the median center of population is a two-dimension median. I should have made sure they also remain either north or South of it as well...Make that "move from Oklahoma to Hawaii"

[Gustaf]

Because Kansas and California are both to the West of the Median. How far removed from it does not matter. It affects the mean center (ie, the average), though.
Of course it gets a bit more complicated because the median center of population is a two-dimension median. I should have made sure they also remain either north or South of it as well...Make that "move from Oklahoma to Hawaii"

Lol...I didn't realize it was north CALIFORNIA, I thought you said North CAROLINA...now I get it, it's self-evident.

[Nym90]

Opebo,

All landowners are far to the right?

There are plenty of people in my family who own land and aren't far to the right. There goes your theory right there.

[opebo]

Opebo,

All landowners are far to the right?

There are plenty of people in my family who own land and aren't far to the right. There goes your theory right there.

I bet if you took a poll solely of rural landowners over 100 acres, you'ld find they're on average to the right of George Bush.

[zachman]

You're definitely right Opebo.

[© tweed]

I bet if you took a poll solely of rural landowners over 100 acres, you'ld find they're on average to the right of George Bush.

Of course.  That's Bush's voting base.