The current weather forecast for November 2, 2010 looks ugly for the middle Atlantic East Coast with easterly winds and rain chances set up between a Canadian high pressure cell and a developing SE US low. Temperatures there are expected to be in the 40s and 50s. The Pacific Northwest may also see considerable wet weather.
There are some old axioms that certain political parties in the USA should pray for rain or sunshine, but in early November, you never know what you will get in terms of weather. A study a few years back by Florida State University professor Brad Gomez comprehensively analyzed the relationship between Presidential voter turnout and weather using over 20,000 individual weather stations from 1948-2000. In their paper, Gomez et al. found empirical evidence that rain (snow) reduces voter participation by about 1% (0.5%) per inch, and may have affected the electoral outcome of the 1960 and 2000 presidential elections.
While the upcoming November 2 midterm elections have a significantly lower voter participation than Presidential years, it is likely that weather is more important to voter turnout and election outcome. This type of study is a great way to combine social and physical sciences to model effects of weather and climate on political issues — rather than vice versa.
Abstract of paper:
The relationship between bad weather and lower levels of voter turnout is widely espoused by media, political practitioners, and, perhaps, even political scientists. Yet, there is virtually no solid empirical evidence linking weather to voter participation. This paper provides an extensive test of the claim.We examine the effect of weather on voter turnout in 14 U.S. presidential elections. Using GIS interpolations, we employ meteorological data drawn from over 22,000 U.S. weather stations to provide election day estimates of rain and snow for each U.S. county. We find that, when compared to normal conditions, rain significantly reduces voter participation by a rate of just less than 1% per inch, while an inch of snowfall decreases turnout by almost .5%. Poor weather is also shown to benefit the Republican party’s vote share. Indeed, the weather may have contributed to two Electoral College outcomes, the 1960 and 2000 presidential elections.
And conclusions:
The results of the zero precipitation scenarios reveal only two instances in which a perfectly dry election day would have changed an Electoral College outcome. Dry elections would have led Bill Clinton to win North Carolina in 1992 and Al Gore to win Florida in 2000. This latter change in the allocation of Florida’s electors would have swung the incredibly close 2000 election in Gore’s favor. Of course, the converse is that a rainier day would have increased George W. Bush’s margin and may have reduced the importance of issues with the butterfly ballot, overvotes, etc. Scholars have identified a number of other factors that may have affected the Florida outcome (see Brady et al. 2001; Imai and King 2004; Mebane 2004)—it was, after all, a very close election with only 537 votes separating Bush and Gore—but to our knowledge we are the first to find that something as simple as rainy weather in some of the Florida counties may have played a critical role in determining the outcome of a presidential election.
The partisan bias associated with weather depressed voter turnout can have meaningful repercussions for election outcomes. Our simulation results for the 1960 and 2000 presidential elections are key examples. The closeness of the 1960 race (a scant 118,000 popular votes separated Kennedy and Nixon) made several states pivotal in the Electoral College, including Illinois, where allegations of vote fraud undertaken by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley followed
Kennedy’s 9,000 vote victory. We cannot say whether Kennedy’s victory benefited from such actions, but we can claim that Kennedy benefited from relatively good weather. In responding to the Florida debacle in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats complained incessantly about a litany of factors that stood as obstacles to a Gore victory: “butterfly ballots,” “hanging chads,” the Florida Secretary of State, the newly elected president’s brother (the Governor of Florida), and, of course, the Republican-appointed Justices on the United States Supreme Court. Yet, our results show that the weather may have hurt their cause just as much. In close elections, the weather becomes one of many factors that can be determinative.
It is clear from our results that Republicans benefit from precipitation on election day. To offset these Republican gains,
Democrats must take action to counteract the increased cost of voting among their supporters. Otherwise, Democrats may wish to “pray for dry weather.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Neither rain, nor snow, nor sleet, nor hail, nor heat of day will keep me from my appointed task of voting. I have been waiting for this day for so long.
Well, obviously, they need to increase the Democratic vote when its wet….
Ugly, cold & blustery weather in California may help Prop 23 delay the draconian AGW legislation from pouring salt into deep economic wounds.
Employment statistics here are bad to the bone.
Speaking as a Brit in London I think disenchantment with the political process is much more of an issue than weather, though cra*py weather probably doesn’t help things much.
Spin merchants add yet another variable in the heady mix.
The really ugly weather is going to be in the DNC HQ and in the West Wing.
Really ugly. American voters are going to Cap the Obama regime and Trade his Team in for a new crew.
Cap & Trade that might get some real support.
I am praying for a record early snowfall throughout the east and midwest for next tuesday. A two-fer nail in the coffin of AGW in the US. Republicans sweep into office and declare immediate death to AGW hoax. I hope they slash and burn AGW alarmist budgets, and tighten the purse strings on the EPA to hold those idiots in check.
NO one, absolutely no one wants to talk about the other factor in the Florida election of 2000 – ie. Dan Rather calling Florida for Gore one hour before the polls closed in the panhandle.
LOL, the weather held up Bill Clinton and stopped Al Gore? Proof of the existence of God, imo! 🙂
I am a Christian, by the way, but I DO think God has a sense of humour.
That the weather can influence the outcome of an election is one clear argument for the imposition of compulsory voting. We have it in Australia, and it causes no problems at all, except in peoples’ minds.
Cheers,
Tim
Whether the weather is wet or whether the weather is otherwise, it won’t matter to most residents of Washington State:
38 of Washington’s 39 counties vote by mail. Pierce County (Tacoma area) still maintains poll sites.
Our votes have been cast. Now we wait.
My generic, non-partisan voting guide is as follows:
1.) Note which party tries desperately to block all attempts to curb voter fraud.
2.) Note which party tries desperately to enable scum of the earth (such as convicted felons) to be allowed to vote.
3.) Note which party singles out Secretary of State positions (i.e., the referees) for targeting.
4.) Note which party blocks all attempts to properly identify voters.
5.) Note which party has the greatest number of Super Heroes and cartoon characters registered to vote (in multiple states).
6.) PRAY FOR RAIN!
Already voted. This is the first time in my life I voted a straight Republican ticket with the exception of one undeclared candidate running for a local county position. I knew the guy.
This is counterintuitive, Anthony. One would think that rain would not significantly impact the Democrats rolls of deceased voters.
The plaintive cry of the democrat/socialist/communist/librul/altruist: “Rainy days and Mondays always get me down.”
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Rainy-Days-And-Mondays-lyrics-Carpenters/18FA487F2A7A22E6482568720033B5A1
“Democrats must take action to counteract the increased cost of voting among their supporters.” (How about gift cards and meals???)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/26/angle-campaign-attorney-reid/
So……the bottom line is advice only for Democrats on how to increase their vote.
Humm……..You don’t suppose that these folks are biased, do you?
So, explain to me why I should trust them?
Bewildered in Texas.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
From my experience in the political front-lines, I’d rather say that bad weather favors the committed. Non-commital or lack-a-daisical voters will not be bothered to turn out in bad weather. Currently, the most committed are the T-partiers, so bad weather favors the Repubs. It would have been different two years ago, according to my theory, which is mine.
No matter the weather, the political climate just keeps getting uglier. No matter the outcome next week, the societal climate will continue to get uglier. Chaos theory guarantees it.
Hobo says @ur momisugly October 27, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I am praying for a record early snowfall throughout the east and midwest for next tuesday. A two-fer nail in the coffin of AGW in the US. Republicans sweep into office and declare immediate death to AGW hoax. I hope they slash and burn AGW alarmist budgets
Phew, thank goodness I waited until that last word before responding. Imagine how wrong I hope they slash and burn AGW alarmists would be.
TimiBoy says:
October 27, 2010 at 5:10 pm
LOL, the weather held up Bill Clinton and stopped Al Gore? Proof of the existence of God, imo! 🙂
I am a Christian, by the way, but I DO think God has a sense of humour.
That the weather can influence the outcome of an election is one clear argument for the imposition of compulsory voting. We have it in Australia, and it causes no problems at all, except in peoples’ minds.
Cheers,
Tim
“Compulsory voting?!”
.
Really now?
.
Has there never been a mass no-show at the polls in order to protest any such heinous law?
.
What would ‘they’ do were such an event to occur? Would ‘they’ have a mass accosting and a ‘mass punishment’ to suit?
.
Maybe its time for a MASS NO-SHOW to invalidate the current government in OZ …
.
Or do you people always dutifully obey every law, even when you know it’s just plain wrong?
.
Enquiring minds desire to know!
If I have to walk two miles uphill in a whiteout blizzard, I will be voting. Since I prefer cold weather that probably isn’t a surprise. 🙂
John Kehr
Pamela Gray says:
October 27, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Already voted. This is the first time in my life I voted a straight Republican ticket…
Ditto here, except it wasn’t the first time.
Re 899
There is no compulsory voting in Aus. There is a law that makes you attend a polling booth to get you name checked off the voters roll. There is another law that you must register as a voter. These laws were introduced to stop politicians from buying votes.
And guess what it works!
The effect of weather should be less this year than ever before. Oregon and Washington are essentially all mail-vote, California is about 70% mail-vote, and many states have set up early voting arrangements.
Well it is all well and good to predcit what would have happened if what happened hadn’t happened; but it is moot.
The problem with the Florida 200o result is that the (democrat controlled) election authorities in a key county; that wanted a recount; simply failed to abide by the clearly wordeed Florida Recount law; and the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it; other than pointing out to Florid, that they had to abide by Florida law; so it had nothing to do with who appointed the members of the Supremes. They simply said you can’t have a partial recount. The democrats wanted to recount only those ballots on which the voter indicated their intent to vote for nobody; by not punching out any chad. and everytime they handled those voter cards, votes started appearing where none had previously been; so repetitive rpartial recounts of those cherry picked ballots gradually increased Gore’s total; and he still lost.
The Supremes simply said fi they were going to recount they had to recount them all; that is all six million ballots cast statewide. Adn if they had, Gore would have lost even bigger; because their new creative hanging chad rule would also have been applied to ballots where in addition to a hanging chad, the voter had indicated his desire to vote for somebody else by punching out a second chad; so the new chad is a vot rule would have had them toosed out as illegal double votes; and the analysis showed Gore loss would have been even bigegr.
Then the election bosses refused to obey the Florida recount law; which simply stated that the election basses ahd to appoint sufficient recount teams to complete the recount in the allotted tiem (ten days or whatever it was). They didn’t do that. they appointed just a handful of recoutn teams; but instead of taking two seconds to look at a ballot, and put it on the gore or bush or nay piles they sepent 15 minutes on each ballot trying to cause a Maxwell’s demon or something to get another chad to fall off;
So they would have needed 10,000 recoutn teams; instead of a handful (in just that one country); and they failed to appoint those so they failed to complete the recount in the timeframe mandated by Florida recount law. Kathleen Harris had no say in the matter; the Florida law laid down the recount conditions precisely but Gor didn’t want to follow them; and if they had he would have lost by even more because of all the extra disallowed double votes caused by his new imaginative hanging chad rule.
So blame it on the weather if you like; but neither the waeath4er nor the Republicans; nor the US Supr3eme court had any influence on the outcome.
You could also blame the NAACP who spent millions on betting African American Voters to polling places, and sending them brochures, and personal visits to show them how the name Albert Gore looked like on paper; they went to all that trouble to get out the “black vote” (fair enough). They spent not a dime or a whit of their time teaching any of those voters what a voting machine looked like and how to properly operate it so their vote would count. It was the NAACP who disenfrachised thousands of black voters by failing to teach them how to operate the machines; and that led to a lot of the chad problems.
I don’t care if they personally visited each one and trained them fully on how to register a vote for Al Gore, and avoid George Bush like the plague. Get out the vote is a time honored tradition and every citizen deserves that opportunity; their own leaders failed them miserably.
Numerous extensive studies of the Florida 2000 vote showed that Bush won it fair and square; and all this what if inuendo is just Monday morning quarterbacking. So get over it; Al Gore lost.
And I don’t care because I’m not a citizen so it isn’t my choice. I guess if I was an illegal alien, I could vote; but since I’m legal, I’m not allowed to do that; and wouldn’t usurp that right that citizens have anyway.
The article says: “To offset these Republican gains, Democrats must take action to counteract the increased cost of voting among their supporters.”
Could someone kindly enlighten me as to what is meant by “increased cost” in this sentence? Never having lived there, I am not familiar with the specifics of voting in the USA (e.g. the proximity of polling stations to people’s homes and places of work). The term “increased cost of voting” does not mean anything to me in isolation qualification. Does it just mean “increased motivation required to go out to vote in bad weather”?
Thanks.
Cycles man, just cycles….