And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:00:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:

>>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>>> for McCain.
>>
>> Yes, but your point is...?
>
> It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even  
> though the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one  
> side.

It can be if you only look at the votes that count and that'd be the  
Electoral ones - 52.9% vs. 45.7% equaled 365 against 173 thus Obama
received over twice as many 'votes' as McCain - a landslide ;-)

Just for fun (if that's the right word) I've got a spreadsheet that sets  
out the electorial votes by proportion rather than as a block going back  
to 1980 so

Year (Candidates) - Actual Result - Proportional Result

1980 (Reagan, Carter, Anderson) - 489, 49 - 276, 223, 37
1984 (Reagan, Mondale) - 525, 13 - 320, 217, (1 Other)
1988 (Bush, Dukakis) - 426, 11 - 289, 247, (1 Other)
1992 (Cinton, Bush, Perot) - 370, 168 - 236, 197, 105
1996 (Clinton, Dole, Perot) - 379, 159 - 266, 223, 47, (2 Other)
2000 (Bush, Gore, Nader) - 271, 266 - 262, 261, 13, (1 Other)
2004 (Bush, Kerry) - 274, 264 - 278, 259, (1 Other)
2008 (Obama, McCain) - 365, 173 - 289, 248

To put it concisely the candidates who won would still have won just with  
a much smaller majority, except in the case of 2004 where Bush would have  
won by more!

For those interested Bush's gains would have been in California and New  
York; instead of a combined 86 votes for Kerry he would only have got 48  
with the remaining 37 going to Bush more than compensating any small  
losses from Republican States.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message