Electoral Vote Projections

[Kepler]

From Electoral Vote.com: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

We have 28 new polls today with changes in three states. First, Wisconsin has now switched to the Kerry column, according to a Zogby tracking poll conducted Oct 23-26. Kerry is now ahead 48% to 46% in one of the swingingest of the swing states. But with a margin of error of 4%, it is still a statistical tie there.

Zogby also shows that Iowa has become a tie at 45% each, according to its Oct. 23-26 poll. Gallup ran a poll in Iowa Oct. 22-25, only a day before Zogby's, and found that among registered voters, Kerry leads 48% to 47%. However, among what Gallup believes are likely voters, Bush is ahead 50% to 46%, a surprisingly large difference. This immediately brings up the issue of how Gallup decides to reject some respondents as unlikely voters. The likely voter screen involves questions about past voting behavior, interest in the election, and knowledge of where the polling place is. Given the huge number of new voters this year, there are legitimate questions about how accurately pollsters can predict likely voters. For this reason, the spreadsheet and map just use the registered voter data where that is available. In this specific case, Zogby's poll is more recent so the issue is moot.

The third change is in Arkansas, where Bush now leads again. This result is not surprising as most observers didn't think there was much of a horse race in Arkansas to begin with. All in all, Kerry gains ground in the electoral college today, reducing Bush's lead to 17 EVs.

Also noteworthy are the four Florida and four Ohio polls today although neither of those states changed hands. Of the four Florida polls, two of them (ARG and Survey USA) give Kerry leads of 3% and 2%, respectively, one of them (Rasmussen) is a tie at 48% apiece, and one of them (Zogby) shows Bush ahead by 4%. I find it ironic that all summer long I was bombarded with e-mail from Republicans denouncing John Zogby as an unreliable Democrat, but that now that he is the only one showing Bush ahead in the key swing states, the e-mail has abruptly ceased. But Zogby's poll is the most recent, so it is the one I am using. Nevertheless, trouble is clearly brewing for Bush in Florida.

We also have four polls in Ohio today. Kerry leads in two (ARG and Survey USA) and trails in two (Zogby and Rasmussen). As in Florida, everything will depend on turnout. It will be very close in any case.

[Red Cloud]

FWIW, I still don't trust Zogby's numbers.

RCP seems to have a solid grip on things - they pretty much boil the election down to FL, MN, NH, NM, OH and WI. Makes sense to me.

[Old Blood and Guts]

My belief is that the race boils down to only two states: Ohio and Florida. If Bush wins ONE of them, he wins. Kerry must win both. Given the past history of Ohio's voting, and recent polling, I think that it is extremely unlikely that Ohio will go for Kerry. Flordia, admittedly, is a toss-up.

Unlike many so-called "experts", I don't think that the undecideds are the "X-Factor". I think that the race is going to remain close right up until next Tuesday, with the results in these two states determining who the President is for the next four years.

[Kepler]

they pretty much boil the election down to FL, MN, NH, NM, OH and WI. Makes sense to me.
Throw in IA too.

[Kepler]

My belief is that the race boils down to only two states: Ohio and Florida. If Bush wins ONE of them, he wins. Kerry must win both.
Take RPIRED's list. Start with the baseline of Bush taking *every* one of those states. The baseline map has K at 228. K then needs to pick up 42 EV in any combination to win. Here are the state values:

IA 7
FL 27
MN 10
NH 4
NM 5
OH 20
WI 10

If K takes FL, he needs just 15 more -- lots of ways to do that. If K takes OH, he needs 22 more. Tougher, but do-able among the 36 non-FL EVs, especially if that means there are things working in his favor in MN and WI -- states which are traditionally left of OH.

Suffice that I think if K takes either OH or FL it will be an uphill fight for Bush, even without the CO initiative wild card.

[Matt1331]

My belief is that the race boils down to only two states: Ohio and Florida. If Bush wins ONE of them, he wins.

I still think he needs to win both to win.

My feeling right now is that Bush is going to get Gore'd.

Matt

[Nick]

Take RPIRED's list. Start with the baseline of Bush taking *every* one of those states. The baseline map has K at 228. K then needs to pick up 42 EV in any combination to win. Here are the state values:

IA 7
FL 27
MN 10
NH 4
NM 5
OH 20
WI 10

If K takes FL, he needs just 15 more -- lots of ways to do that. If K takes OH, he needs 22 more. Tougher, but do-able among the 36 non-FL EVs, especially if that means there are things working in his favor in MN and WI -- states which are traditionally left of OH.

Suffice that I think if K takes either OH or FL it will be an uphill fight for Bush, even without the CO initiative wild card.

This could be a mess. I think the democrats have lost their footing in IA-7 and WI-10, and those states will go to Bush. MN-10 won't go with them, but it will be extremely close. So if Kerry takes FL-27 and NH-4, and Bush takes OH-20 and NM-5, we are looking at a 269-269 tie.

[Todd]

Some of the justifications for challenges will continue to include uncounted ballots as evidence of discrimination or just vote rigging. Informed members of this board will remember that an MIT study of voting technologies after 2000 showed that the most accurate technology, optical scan, still produced error rates by voters (multiple circles filled in, no circles filled in, marks to faint to be read) of 2.6% of all ballots cast. Punch card rates were 3.1% and computer voting was 3.0%.

So in any state where the margin of victory is less than 2.6%, even with the best technology, we can expect ballot error to be in excess of that margin, thus legitimizing, falsesly, challenges and recounts.

We used to understand and accept human error as a natural component of the voting process, now it's an excuse for another variant of class and race warfare.There's a difference between error rates in the technology (even if it's writing a name on a card) and not counting the ballots.

[Milmo]

There's a difference between error rates in the technology (even if it's writing a name on a card) and not counting the ballots.

The error rates found by the MIT study were not error rates of the technologies themselves, they were the error rates of humans using the technologies.

In FL in 2000, 2.9% of all ballots were not counted as votes because they were double punched, not punched, doubled marked, whatever. These are naturally occuring errors that humans make as a result of the complexity of the voting technology interacting with a particular person's ability to use it correctly (that day). The MIT study showed that 2.9% is an error rate that is completely normal and ubiquitous for humans using the voting technologies of the type used in FL. No voter surpression theories or other skullduggery is needed to explain it.

[French Rage]

My belief is that the race boils down to only two states: Ohio and Florida. If Bush wins ONE of them, he wins. Kerry must win both. Given the past history of Ohio's voting, and recent polling, I think that it is extremely unlikely that Ohio will go for Kerry. Flordia, admittedly, is a toss-up.

Unlike many so-called "experts", I don't think that the undecideds are the "X-Factor". I think that the race is going to remain close right up until next Tuesday, with the results in these two states determining who the President is for the next four years.

I agree, more or less, having said that it comes down to two out of PA/FL/OH. Right now, it seems that PA is leaning Kerry, and FL is more likely to go Bush, so the biggest of the three will be OH. It is possible for a candidate to get 2 or 3 and still lose, but I think that would require every other swing state - MO/IA/MN/WI/NM/NH/etc - to go to the other guy. Given that that is highly unlikely, given the size of the big 3 it really comes down to them.

[Todd]

The error rates found by the MIT study were not error rates of the technologies themselves, they were the error rates of humans using the technologies.

In FL in 2000, 2.9% of all ballots were not counted as votes because they were double punched, not punched, doubled marked, whatever. These are naturally occuring errors that humans make as a result of the complexity of the voting technology interacting with a particular person's ability to use it correctly (that day). The MIT study showed that 2.9% is an error rate that is completely normal and ubiquitous for humans using the voting technologies of the type used in FL. No voter surpression theories or other skullduggery is needed to explain it.I understand that, that's why I included writing a name on a card. I'm including user error - neither pencil, pen or paper manufacturers could be faulted for those errors, but it would still be a problem inherent in that voting technology that would be different from other systems.

My comment was in reference to what you said: "Some of the justifications for challenges will continue to include uncounted ballots as evidence of discrimination or just vote rigging." Sometimes ballots aren't counted because they're invalid (improperly cast or recorded). I believe that to be your point. Mine is that sometimes valid ballots are simply uncounted - and that is unfair.

This isn't the thread to go into deep discussion addressing your last comment: "No voter surpression theories or other skullduggery is needed to explain it." However, my brief comment is this: while your statement on its own is true - there is no *need* to explain the error by other means - it is a false choice. There may *also* be voter suppression or other skullduggery.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you...

[dropthatpuck]

Throw in IA too.

Kepler...why did they give DC 3 EV's 10 years ago instead of 2 or 4? By giving them an odd number, Congress put the possibility of an EV tie into play.

....and how do they get 3 EV's with no representation in Congress?

[Red Cloud]

Kepler...why did they give DC 3 EV's 10 years ago instead of 2 or 4? By giving them an odd number, Congress put the possibility of an EV tie into play. It wasn't 10 years ago... DC first had the vote in 1964 after the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961.

Were you watching "The Big Story" last night? I know Napolitano claimed that it was 10 years ago. He also claimed that California had "about 33 representatives", and he's off by 20.

....and how do they get 3 EV's with no representation in Congress?It was arbitrary through the 23rd Amendment.

"A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State..."

Therefore, the number is 3 in both conditions, since DC as a state would have 2 senators (like all the states) and 1 representative (since their population is slightly larger than that of Wyoming, the smallest state population wise).

[Red Cloud]

New polls. Yay.

ARIZONA
Rasmussen: 50-45 Bush (3% Badnarik)

COLORADO
Zogby: 49-47 Kerry
Zogby's daily polls remain the only ones who have Kerry up in CO.

IOWA
Zogby: 45-45

MICHIGAN
Zogby: 49-45 Kerry
Detroit News: 45-44 Kerry (1% Nader)

MISSOURI
Kansas City Star: 49-45 Bush

NEVADA
Rasmussen: 49-47 Bush (2% Nader)
Zogby: 49-46 Bush

NEW JERSEY
Quinnipiac: 46-46 (2% Nader)

NEW MEXICO
Zogby: 48-43 Bush
Rasmussen: 48-44 Bush (2% Nader, 1% Badnarik)

VIRGINIA
Hampton Roads Pilot: 50-44 Bush

WASHINGTON
SurveyUSA: 51-45 Kerry

And I don't know why I include this, I just thought it was kinda funny that the Omaha World Herald decided to take a poll for the result of their congressional race...

NEBRASKA CD-3
Former NU football coach and current Congressman Tom Osborne (R) 86%
Hairdresser Donna Anderson (D) 8%

I wonder what the MoE is :D

[dropthatpuck]

It wasn't 10 years ago... DC first had the vote in 1964 after the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961.

Were you watching "The Big Story" last night? I know Napolitano claimed that it was 10 years ago. He also claimed that California had "about 33 representatives", and he's off by 20.

It was arbitrary through the 23rd Amendment.

"A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State..."

Therefore, the number is 3 in both conditions, since DC as a state would have 2 senators (like all the states) and 1 representative (since their population is slightly larger than that of Wyoming, the smallest state population wise).

Thanks!

I don't know why I remember 10 years....I thought something was added or changed in DC when Clinton was in the oval office with a GOP majority in Congress....couldn't figure out how they could possibly agree on giving democrats 3 move EV's just like that. This explains it.

[Todd]

It wasn't 10 years ago... DC first had the vote in 1964 after the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961.

Were you watching "The Big Story" last night? I know Napolitano claimed that it was 10 years ago. He also claimed that California had "about 33 representatives", and he's off by 20.

It was arbitrary through the 23rd Amendment.

"A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State..."

Therefore, the number is 3 in both conditions, since DC as a state would have 2 senators (like all the states) and 1 representative (since their population is slightly larger than that of Wyoming, the smallest state population wise).Interesting...I'd never looked into the 3 EV for DC.

I could figure the three (2 theoretical Senators and one theoretical Rep, just like everyone else). I just assumed that it was a fixed three as a token of representation as if they were a small state. It never occurred to me that law would tie in their representation to not only their own population, but also that of every other state.

In order for DC to ever have 4 or more EV, not only would they have to rise in proportionate population (all the major population centers could be wiped out by plague just before a census, too), but so would every other 3 EV state. That's not just getting more populous, but proportionately so.

For all practical purposes, short of the major pop. centers emptying out into the low pop. areas, DC is stuck on three EV - which is still more representation than they have in Congress. Then again, I suppose we can let them have some say in the person that signs off on their municipal budget.

[Kepler]

Interesting question on the AP-IPSOS poll yesterday of whether there will be a clear winner in the election. As reported by PollingReport: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm

44% of people are less than "very" confident that votes in their state will be counted accurately. Given what's happening in FL, and its implications, that number will only rise.

On the EV sites, Kerry is now in the lead on Blogging Caesar, 272-266. http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html Kerry gets WI back with the latest polls.

[Red Cloud]

Today's polls are brought to you by the letter R.

ARIZONA
Arizona State: 50-45 Bush

COLORADO
Zogby: 50-46 Kerry

FLORIDA
Quinnipiac: 49-46 Bush
Zogby: 48-46 Bush
LA Times: 51-43 Bush

IOWA
Zogby: 45-45
ARG: 48-47 Bush (Nader 1%)

MARYLAND
Baltimore Sun: 56-39 Kerry
That one poll result is officially debunked.

MICHIGAN
Zogby: 47-47
Detroit News: 47-42 Kerry (Nader 1%)

MINNESOTA
Zogby: 47-44 Kerry
U. of Minnesota: 47-44 Bush

NEVADA
Zogby: 51-44 Bush

NEW JERSEY
Strategic Vision: 44-44 (Nader 1%)
Research 2000: 45-44 Kerry

NEW MEXICO
Zogby: 47-44 Bush

OHIO
Zogby: 46-45 Kerry

OREGON
ARG: 50-46 Kerry
KATU-TV: 50-47 Kerry

PENNSYLVANIA
Quinnipiac: 49-47 Bush
Zogby: 49-46 Kerry
LA Times: 48-48

VIRGINIA
Zogby: 50-44 Bush

WASHINGTON
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: 50-45 Kerry
This may also be a Strategic Vision poll, but I doubt it. Anyway, SV came up with the same result.

WISCONSIN
Zogby: 50-46 Kerry
ARG: 48-47 Kerry (Nader 1%)

[Kepler]

I prefer the letter "D."

>COLORADO Zogby: 50-46 Kerry

Hard to believe. It would be funny if the initiative cut *against* the Dems, though.


> FLORIDA Quinnipiac: 49-46 Bush, Zogby: 48-46 Bush, LA Times: 51-43 Bush

Apparently it doesn't matter anyway. You can't win if your votes don't make it to the count. :(


> MICHIGAN Zogby: 47-47 Detroit News: 47-42 Kerry (Nader 1%)

That Zogby result is worrisome. MI should have been locked up a long time ago.


> MINNESOTA Zogby: 47-44 Kerry U. of Minnesota: 47-44 Bush

Pretty substantial difference!


> NEW JERSEY Research 2000: 45-44 Kerry

As hard to believe as CO. Given that neither side is going there, assume it's bunk.


> PENNSYLVANIA Quinnipiac: 49-47 Bush Zogby: 49-46 Kerry LA Times: 48-48

See MI, above.


> WISCONSIN Zogby: 50-46 Kerry ARG: 48-47 Kerry (Nader 1%)

Probably the best news either candidate has had in the last week. WI was the second-toughest Great Lakes nut to crack. PA>MI>MN>WI>OH. If that means everybody to tbe left of WI goes to Kerry, he's just OH away.[/QUOTE]

[ScoobyDoo]

The Boston Red Sox won so maybe this won't matter anymore either.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=1910795