US Election Predictions

[August1991]

Anybody want to make a bet?

Electoral Votes predictor now has Bush at 285 and Kerry at 247. This includes Florida (27 votes) in the Bush camp. If Florida goes for Kerry, then it would be 274 Kerry and 258 Bush.

This prediction is also giving Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (20) to Bush. If these two states switched, it would be Kerry's too.

BTW, the above site has an Animated Map at the bottom of the screen which is interesting to watch.

[Stoker]

I'm going for Bush and I think he will win.......but alot could happen in the next week.......I thought Harper was going to be our Prime Minister a few days before our election.........

I'll stick with Bush.

Also, I've read and saw alot of politacal pundits on tv that are predicting a dramatic swing, in that this election won't be as close as the last.......just depends on which way it swings

Who are you puting your money on August?

[Newfie Canadian]

I think if Kerry were going to win it would be clear by now.

I've heard interviews of people saying they don't like Bush, but they don't like Kerry either.

If the Democrats had a strong, popular candidate, they would have a legitimate shot at it. I don't think that's Kerry, and the Democrats are going to stay out of the White House because of it.

[Slavik44]

Bush: 276

Kerry: 262

that is what I will predict for now

[Guest eureka]

Kerry in a landslide.

[August1991]

Kerry in a landslide.

He'll get DC for sure. I'll even give him Mass.

Who are you puting your money on August?

I learned long ago to ignore my personal preferences in elections.

I'm reading Life and Death in Shanghai right now and she notes that in democracy, leaders can see the truth - or at least, what people think of them.

In this case, I don't know. But we'll see.

[i too thought that Harper had a chance in the past election but then, apparently, many Ontarians changed their minds in the last few days. About 25 seats shifted. I don't think this will happen in the US.]

The Democrats learned their lesson in 2000 and Kerry is one competitive bastard. He needs Ohio (Bush won it in 2000) or Florida (Bush "won" it in 2000). But my election predictions are usually wrong.

Two things bother me about the US now.

First, I think they should dispense with the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote. If Bush wins again without a plurality, the US presidency will be weakened.

Second, expect more cliffhanger elections in the future (and a series of Atlantic Monthly/Harper's analytical pieces about how US politics have become fundamentally divided). Both parties want to win. So of course, they will propose good candidates. And the media will help them choose good candidates in the primaries. It makes the election almost as exciting as the World Series.

My prediction? Kerry 267, Bush 265. Bush calls a recount in Ohio, Kerry in Florida.

[August1991]

There you go.

Clinton will travel to Florida for an evening rally.

Action-star-turned-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will stump for Bush in Ohio later this week.

CTV Story

[Michael Hardner]

I believe Bush will win. If Kerry hasn't got a big lead by now, the last minute undecideds will go for the status quo.

I have mixed feelings on this election. While I think Bush's policies have been generally bad for America, I don't think Kerry will do much better. And if Kerry wins, Bush's failures will be placed at Kerry's feet, not Bush's.

[Cartman]

It is simply too close to call. I think Kerry has the edge but Bush may steal another one. The real prediction to be made is whether they have learned to count in Florida.

[Guest eureka]

Florida again! 58,000 ballots have gone mssing. They are said to be from a heavily Democrat area.

Jeb Bush recently fired election officials and replaced them with Republican functionaries.

[Black Dog]

Based on yesterday's happenings on the gridiron, it looks like a Kerry win.

John Kerry supporters have a welcome omen for their candidate: The Green Bay Packers defeated the Washington Redskins on Sunday.

If history holds, the 28-14 result portends a victory for Kerry on Tuesday because the result of the Redskins' final home game before the presidential election has always accurately predicted the White House winner. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted.

[Newfie Canadian]

It's very close.

The sad part about it is that we may not know who won until some time in December, and remember everybody, Florida has 2 time zones.

[daniel]

There you go.

Clinton will travel to Florida for an evening rally.

How effective is this? I remember Dukakis criss-crossing the country to 4am the night before (actually morning before).

Who's going to attend rallies at 4am? His own supporters would have already made up their minds to not attend and the undecideds would have better things to do.

[Cartman]

I looked at the US voting system and I cannot believe what a mess it is. It is strange that each state has its own unique way of handing out their votes. In some states, you get every electoral college vote whereas in others, the winner may only get a few more than the loser. The system was designed in the 18th century when communication was terribly slow but remains virtually unchanged.

I also heard of problems in Florida on the first day of voting. You would think this to be a simple fix.

[Guest eureka]

You are right about the electoral college and its potential for distortion. That is worsened by the ability of the individual states to decide how votes are apportioned.

This means that in two states the College votes are divided while in all others it is winner take all. That has the possibility of sending some college votes to one while the other takes only from the 100%ers. That is badly expressed but I think you know what I mean.

To worsen this, a third state has the question on the ballot and it will not be known until after the voting is tallied where its votes go or whether they are divided.

Interetingly, the Electoral College at its founding was an anti-democratic measure. It was formed in order to give authority the power to override election populism if there should be an "unsuitable" winner in the popular vote.

This has, fortunately, never ben a case. Now, it may be serving the prpose of choosing the loser as President.

[Slavik44]

You are right about the electoral college and its potential for distortion. That is worsened by the ability of the individual states to decide how votes are apportioned.

This means that in two states the College votes are divided while in all others it is winner take all. That has the possibility of sending some college votes to one while the other takes only from the 100%ers. That is badly expressed but I think you know what I mean.

To worsen this, a third state has the question on the ballot and it will not be known until after the voting is tallied where its votes go or whether they are divided.

Interetingly, the Electoral College at its founding was an anti-democratic measure. It was formed in order to give authority the power to override election populism if there should be an "unsuitable" winner in the popular vote.

This has, fortunately, never ben a case. Now, it may be serving the prpose of choosing the loser as President.

Well actually, in the begning Popular vote never decided the President representatives elected the president and orignaly they were not in any binding situation to elect a certain person. however the electoral colege does serve a purpose as it helps protect small states, as you ahve pointed out it normally doesn't fail, but if the election was based solely on population with out a small bonus added to holes in the ground like Montana, Alaska and so on an so forth you woudl end up having dis-enfranchised and un-important states. Canada is the same way, we give more power to smaller provinces, do you really think Nunavut has the population for 1 seat? no but it doesn't hurt to help out the small guy. How about P.E.I it has 0.4% of Canada's population but controls 1% of Canada's

Parliment. Or New foundland 1% population 2% control.

But then their are provinces like British Columbia with 13% of Canada's population and only 11% control of parliment. Or Ontario 38% of Canada's population and only 34% control of Parliment

I relaise That in Canada, we do nto elect a President but I am trying to point out that in any electoral system it will be easy for anyone to point fingers, and say that is stupid, but rember the same can be said for any system. Democracy after all is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. In any democratic system there will be power given to smaller Provinces or States or areas to keep them from being overriden. I may disagree with making the third most populated province the second biggest sufferer, and the second most populated province a benificiary but I realise these things happen, and in many cases Power spreading is a way to keep the wheels of democracy rolling. On the surface it looks to be a load of crap but underneath we realise the crap is actually manure and it helps the Tree of democracy grow and flourish.

[Guest eureka]

The founding purpose of the Electoral College, though, was to enable authority to choose a President should an "unnactable candidate win. It was distrust of democracy that insppired the College, not a desire to protect small states.

It is, now that we have close elections, showing a potential for distortion that was not too serious in the past - though it has happened before. The states that do not have winner take all, permot a greater wrong. Depending on their affiliation, their electoral votes for a losing candidate could make a loser a winner. That possibility grows with the number of states that split the College count.

It could also work in reverse but that would not harm a result.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Polling this morning suggests Kerry leads in Ohio now. Line-ups at Florida polling stations suggest that Floridians are making serious efforts to see that their state is not stolen yet again.

Accordingly, I am now guardedly optimistic that Kerry will take it.

[Slavik44]

The founding purpose of the Electoral College, though, was to enable authority to choose a President should an "unnactable candidate win. It was distrust of democracy that insppired the College, not a desire to protect small states.

It is, now that we have close elections, showing a potential for distortion that was not too serious in the past - though it has happened before. The states that do not have winner take all, permot a greater wrong. Depending on their affiliation, their electoral votes for a losing candidate could make a loser a winner. That possibility grows with the number of states that split the College count.

It could also work in reverse but that would not harm a result.

no originally, before there was a president, the confederation of the United States failed due to a strong National government. Which is why in 1787 representatives from the states met to make changes to the constitution and create a stronger Federal government. small states did not want to be run over, and big states didn;t want to be bossed around by small states, which is why a senate with 2 members per state was created and a population based House of Representatives was created as a Comprimise for both sides. Whne it came time to decide how to elect a President, There was one side who favoured, as you do, direct election of the president and another side that wanted the president to be elected by State legislators. from this the current electoral colelge was spawned. It satisfied the need for election by the people, the peopel cast a ballot and the state voted in accordance to the ballot. The only time in Wich the state could fully decide and disregard the people is if a Majority was not reached by any one Candidate and then we woudl be left with a system much like Political Party leaders in Canada our picked, in leadership conventions. This satisfied both small states as every oen was guranteed atleast 3 votes in the matter, but allowed bigger states to maintain a bigger say. This was very important to the smalelr states and was vital in gettign states like Delaware, New Hampshire, Georgia, New Jersey and others which all had populations below states like Pensylvania, Virginia and New york. Wether ro not it became an anti-Democratic measure is completley up to opinion, but it took nine states ratification to make these changes law, meaning small states were going to have to sign on and it would be important to give them a reason to, while there was still a force behind the desire for a strong federal government.

[Guest eureka]

I am not sure whether you are dispuriong what I say. However, the Electoral College was, as I said, constitured in the way that it was in order that it might ignore the popular vote count if necessary. That is not my opinion: it is information that is available in any text study of American politics. The individual states also can decide for themselves whether the electors are "winner take all" or split according to vote. That can skew the system further.

At present, only two states do split the count. There is a third that has it on the ballot in this vote.

[Slavik44]

I am not sure whether you are dispuriong what I say. However, the Electoral College was, as I said, constitured in the way that it was in order that it might ignore the popular vote count if necessary. That is not my opinion: it is information that is available in any text study of American politics. The individual states also can decide for themselves whether the electors are "winner take all" or split according to vote. That can skew the system further.

At present, only two states do split the count. There is a third that has it on the ballot in this vote.

What I am argueing is that, it was used as a way to get the 9 states to ratify the changes and put htem into affect. Obviously there was a distrust of "Mob" rule in the early america, But there was also a distrust of elitist rule in america. So in ways the electoral college served as a comprimise for those afraid of elitist rule and Mob rule. It was a comprimise but it has its merrits and i would argue it is a decent system.