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.”
evanmjones says:
October 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm
> We know that a president or congressman will step down after his term is over (assuming he is not re-elected). Therefore, even if an election is stolen, the effects are limited.
One of the most impressive scenes in my personal memory of US politics was soon after President Carter’s inauguration (or was it during?) when a network’s coverage switched for a few seconds from Carter to the newly ex-President Ford. Ford was on a golf course, chipping out of a bunker with a perfect shot that rolled directly into the hole.
Despite all the flaws, America does have a very smooth transition of power after elections.
Churchill was greatest englishman, the german said that Adenauer was the greatest german and the french said that De Gaulle
Churchill, I would have guessed, though Queen Elizabeth I (or even Victoria) or Pitt might have done as well.
I am kinda surprised at the other two. What about Bismarck and Napoleon?
Addie and Chuckie might (arguably) be considered better than Nap and Biz. But greater?
But there is absolutely no requirement that any State vote ALL of its electors to the winner of a popular vote in that State.
Two don’t, even today. (Maine, Nebraska.)
(And the 1860 electoral map looks like an oversized checkerboard.)
The Electoral College combined with a presidential government form ensures we don’t end up with an ineffective coalition government, such as they have in Europe. Regardless of the closeness of the popular vote, the electoral system gives us a definite winner. Neither Clinton, W, nor Kennedy had a majority of the popular vote, but there was no doubt about their wins in the Electoral College.
Changing to a popular vote would give us a weaker, indecisive government.
The Electoral College means that one side can’t win nationally merely by huge majorities in some large states while faring tepidly elsewhere.
Now, consider the various and novel means whereby one might, over time, run up large majorities in a few big states even while not faring so well elsewhere. Consider the political incentives to both major parties.
Mike McMillan says:
Thank you -took the words right out of my mouth. In Oregon we in Nowhere-as described by our paedophile Governor-Neil Goldschmidt- we on the Red side of the
Cascades are under a dictatorship of the majority, on the blue/purple,west side. The electoral college is fair to those who have neither the land area of the population…
NONSENSE. Complete and utter nonsense. This is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attack on the United States of America, specifically our Republic.
But first of all, what would possess you to hijack this thread in such an off-topic way. Such a transparent spam! I see that your cut ‘n’ paste (from the link no doubt) is all formatted and spellchecked ready to be dumped into blogs and websites. What a guy! Really doin’ the hard work in the computer age huh? Of course you would spam Anthony’s ultra-highly ranked website. Don’t you think you owe him some money now? Did you hit the tip jar? If you provide your real name and address he certainly could bill you.
Anyway, if the mods will indulge me I will comment on this pathetic tripe.
Wrong. The states elect the President in the United *States* of America. Your pipedream is to kill that. Moreover, every one of your premises is also wrong, particularly “Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation”. Candidates would only care about masses of votes, e.g., Cities. Candidates would not care a wit about North Dakota or Rhode Island. They would actually spend even more time now in New York and California, padding the votes totals in the big states worse than before. Another thing to remember is that in presidential elections the STATES tend to go 30-20 or 28-22 (well two states already split their electors, the dopes). It is easy to see a day when only a handful of states, perhaps 10, is all that is needed to win elections. This would happen if you milked every last vote out of the 10 most populous states never setting foot in the 40 others.
But most importantly, this is for all practical purposes, the murder of the United States of America, which is the intended purpose anyway (you even admit it: “Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.”). With a NPV, the sovereignty of the states will have finally been completely demolished, which clearly aligns the NPV idiots alongside those that have tried to snuff out the 9th and 10th Amendments. States would be relegated to 2nd tier, forever, after the federal government. States would be like counties, cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods, just a larger version. The United States of America would simply become the United Cities of America or just America. But of course you don’t care about this.
This is sure as hell an illegal compact between states which is prohibited and everybody knows it (and yup, you have a group of people in NPV who have rationalized this away). Even if you invent some legal technicality all that does is show me criminal intent. Perhaps you may remember that one of the reasons for a Constitution was to supercede state compacts. Using the Constitution to undermine the Constitution is grotesque, but par for the course these days.
Do me a favor and don’t use the words Founding Fathers in this discussion, it is an insult, as you are attempting to stick a knife in their backs. They gave a us mechanism for such monumental (and in this case, disastrous) changes: Amendment. This NPV idea, and your attempt to associate it with the Founders is disgusting. Furthermore, there is no problem to be solved in the first place (i.e., a close election is not a crisis), it is irrational to pursue reckless remedies to non-existant problems (hmmm, strangely enough we could be talking about AGW here, you can bet that the same people are behind this as well).
Perhaps most importantly, the NPV is the biggest attack on the Republic ever attempted. Its effect would be to destroy it and replace it with a democracy. You minorities out there (myself included) ponder that for a minute. Think about it. This is a leftist plot, plain and simple, brought to you by the descendants of the slavery party. Coming to a theater near you: Uncle Tom’s Cabin meets American Idol.
It is worth remembering that there is not a chance in hell that Constitution would have been ratified by the several *STATES* if it specified that they would ever become irrelevant. NO CHANCE. Make no mistake, this has been the leftist plan all along, and they will never let up. Wake up people! Even after these next few elections it won’t be over, not for our descendants. They have broken through all the firewalls and this would be the final straw. We are going to need new Amendments, perhaps a Constitutional Convention to protect ourselves from these cockroaches.
But on the other hand, I can think of only a few ways to kick the USA situation from angry discourse to full-out civil war. One way is repeal or have the USSC severely diminish the 2nd Amendment (and we were very VERY close in the recent past, the country survives on a ledge from a 5-4 Supreme Court). I believe the other way is to kill the Electoral College which would kill what remains of the original Constitution and its safeguards for the republic (“Franklin: a republic, if you can keep it”). Keep on poking at the tiger in the cage. I dare you.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first
contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.
Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states’ total 166 electoral votes.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004. A “big city” only campaign would not win.
For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at
http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/default.aspx
If each district is individually decided, FINE. That way 10 zillion extra votes (for, gosh, I wonder which party – NOT) mysteriously appearing in one district will not upend an election, just that district (which probably would have voted that way anyway).
“Popular Vote” is a nothing but a whitewashed clarion call for voter fraud (by I wonder which party – NOT).
Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s electoral votes.
Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.
Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).
Under the National Popular Vote bill, one presidential candidate is guaranteed to get a majority of the nation’s electoral votes. Under the bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The legislation would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). So, the winning candidate will always get at least 270 electoral votes, for decisive Electoral College victories.
[snip]
Enough! – you are right kohler has hijacked this thread and is off topic, but I will not allow your reply to kohler either since your comment is both OT and verging on an Ad Hom in parts. Further comments from either of you on this thread will be sniped also unless back on topic. ~jove, mod
So much for the forecast. Election day has arrived and it would appear to be a pretty nice day except around the gulf. I’ve never understood why your forecasters continue to try to predict the weather 7 days out. I thought Lorenz showed that due to the chaotic nature of the weather this simply isn’t possible given the amount of data we collect. And I think it’s abundantly clear from experience that this is indeed the case.
Time to vote…
Whoops, looks great out there!