Show me an accurate poll

First, take note of the forum. I hope everyone gets out and votes but I’m not asked for your political opinions.

Who knows of a good reliable poll which breaks things down by electoral votes? I mostly see the CNN polls but they seem to be measuring popular vote only. For obvious reasons that is not as important as the electoral vote.

Go to Electoral Vote for a neat little site that updates every day based on the new polls that come out.

I can’t help but think there is a little bias on the site due to some of the links that are included on various pages, but it does give you a better view on things than a pointless nationwide poll.

Took you four minutes? Couldn’t you be a little quicker? I don’t have all day :wink: .

Thanks for the help.

Dunno if it is accurate, but here’s one. I linked to it from AOL, so I dunno if you get there, but I see nothing the URL that would prevent it.

This is amusing, as the two example of “accurate” polls show completely different final results.

There is no accurate poll for this election. Turnout is going to be very high, and the vast majority of polls only draw from “likely voters” as their sample. Add that into the 8% (or less) spread in most states, and add in the polls own margin of error, AND that these errors will compound themselves because of the nature of electoral votes (a 1% edge in a swing state can lead to a more than a 1% swing in electoral votes won, depending upon the state).

The data that you want isn’t collectible without an election.


Factually speaking, that AOL straw poll is a joke. If Bush ends up getting 48 percent of the vote in Massachusetts, I’ll eat my hat.

Same with 48% in New York and 47% in California. And what kind of straw poll only polls 14 people, no wonder they have ND going for Kerry.

That AOL one is real fishy. Not that I think the other is much better, a bit better though.

That AOL site is a joke. Not only is it way over on support for Bush, but it gives ND to Kerry. There is no question the flickertail state will go for Bush. They must be using some flawed methodology.

The site mentioned by Mullinator has a possible explanation for this.

I do think a lot of “unlikely” voters will show up on Nov. 2. This would tend to favor Kerry as the people who normally don’t vote that show up this year will not likely do so out of love for Bush. I think it was “unlikely” voters who put Ventura over the top in MN six years ago. Ventura was 3rd in the final poll going into the election.

That AOL thingie is not a poll.

Get it? It’s the tabulated and graphed results of AOL users self-selecting to vote on this thing.

That first link shows Illinois as “Strong Kerry.” However, what I’m reading in some local (Illinois) media seems to suggest that we’re “Weak Bush.”

I highly doubt that. Got a cite? I don’t doubt you, but I have a feeling it may have been a local poll.

I guess this was a more difficult question than I thought :wink: .

It makes me wonder why most polls are measures of the popular vote and not the electoral vote. We don’t elect the president that way. Don’t answer that its more of a GD I think.

I think it’s pretty simple - money. An electoral college poll is going to cost you 50 times more money and resources.

According to a recent poll, 3 out of 4 Americans make up 75% of the population.

According to a poll, 82% of internet statistics are made up on the spot.

The first link does have cites, if you mouseover the state in question. This is the poll they get the numbers from.

I just looked at the (first linked) Electoral Poll site and then some data from the latest Census. If I may ask a follow up question (feel free to link to another thread if this has been asked and answered):

Why does a vote in some states seem to count for more than a vote in others? I took population data for several states (the largest and smallest) and here’s what I got:
Wyoming - 3 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 164,594 people
N. Dakota - 3 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 214,067 people
S. Dakota - 3 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 251,517 people
Montana - 3 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 300,732 people
Nevada - 5 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 399,651 people
Ohio - 20 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 567,657 people
Florida - 27 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 591,940 people
New York - 31 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 612,144 people
California - 55 electoral votes or 1 vote for every 615,848 people

Reference for population is from the US Census Bureau for 2000 Census.

Now, I’ve inferred that the minimum number of electoral votes must be 3. But why does it fluctuate a bit above that? And what is the rationale for setting a floor for votes? Does this go back to the old Federalist for Confederacy argument and have to do with strong “State’s Rights”? I feel kind of cheated, but not as bad as California is. Just seems like an overly strong influence to give places like Wyoming, ND, SD, etc.

Wow, that AOL poll could not be more of a joke. I spent may years in North Dakota and I can say with absolute confidence that purple monkeys will fly out of my ass and perform Wagner’s Ring Cycle before ND votes for Kerry.

You get one elector for each senator and one elector for each representative.

Every state gets at least two senators and one representative in the House, regardless of population. That’s three electoral votes even if they have a population of fourteen living people. Sparsely populated states therefore get more electors per citizen.

Once they’ve got enough folks living there, they get a second representative for the House. Yet more, and they get a third. There’s a range of possible population between the number just barely sufficient to yield that second representative and the number just barely short of being enough for a third, but the number of representatives, and therefore electors, would remain the same throughout that range.

Heavily populated states get a large handful of electors, only two of which are due to the two senators, and therefore the “free starting point” of two senators and one rep have less proportional effect on how many electors they get – most of their electors are a direct consequence of population – and therefore they tend to have fewer electors per capita.

Thanks for the explanation, AHunter3. Was my guess as to “why” it is that way about right, or do I have more reading to do for homework? (This dispelling of my own ignorance can be a lot of work)