Why do people think Gore won the popular vote?

Great Debates
1

I’ve been confused over something ever since this election thing got going. I always here people say, “Gore won the popular vote and he probably won Florida.”

It seems to me that we can never know who won Florida or the Popular vote since the margin of difference is so minute. 350,000 vote difference out of 106,000,000 in the pouplar vote and 930 out of 6,000,000 in the Florida vote.

There were ballots thrown out in Florida, but not a particularly high rate. There were 2 million ballots thrown out around the nation, about normal for a Presidential Election(actually less than 1996, which had lower turnout).

It seems to me that there are three positions you can take.

  1. We know Gore won the popular votes if you count legally and properly cast votes. We also know Bush won Florida if you count legally and properly cast votes.

  2. Gore may have won Florida if you count all the ballots by hand, in all the counties. Bush may have won the popular vote if you do the same around the nation.

Am I wrong? By the way, I believe the magin of difference in the popular vote is about 3/10 of 1 percent. Florida’s difference was about 1/10 of 1 percent. Generally, anything under 1/2 of one percent is considered worthy of a recount.

2

Sorry, I meant to say that there seem to be TWO positions you can take.

By the way, the popular vote has become so signifigant because it really was Gore’s motivation to pursue the Florida recounts.

3

In statistics, it isn’t only the percent difference that is important in determining whether one proportion is larger than another but the size of the sample and the size of the difference. If you regard the counted votes as a sample of the cast votes, then the fact that far more people voted nationwide than in Florida renders it far less likely that counting all the votes would change the outcome. Because of the absolute size of the sample and the difference between their vote totals, the nationwide vote is a much better approximation of the actual proportion of support for Bush vs. for Gore.

Taking the numbers that you’ve given to be correct and assuming for simplicity that everyone voted for either Bush or Gore, I ran some quick Z-significance tests on the data with my TI-83. I find:

The Florida vote (before any hand-recount) established that Bush was the favored candidate to a 64.8% degree of certainty. (z = .380, p = .352)

The national vote established that Gore was the favored candidate to a degree of certainty so close to 100% that the doubt is less than one part in 10 ^ 100. ( z = 34.0, p = 0)

Strictly speaking, the Z-test is not valid because it assumes an unbiased sample (Gore claimed the Florida vote was biased against him) and that the population is at least 10 times the sample size (not true in this case). Readers learned in statistics could find a few other places to nitpick. Still, these results should be reasonably accurate. This shows why the contention that Gore might not actually have won the popular vote seems a bit silly.

4

Well, it seems to me that no president has “won the popular vote” over the last 3 elections. Clinton got a plurality (but not a majority, thanks to H. Ross) of the popular vote in '92 &'96. He did get a majority of the electoral college vote in both elections. GWB didn’t get a majority of the popular vote, but then again, neither did Gore. He got the barest of majorities in the electoral college vote (maybe, depending on “faithless” electors).

It could be argued that in all three elections, the “winner” lost the popular election, since more than 50% did not want him as president. I think this is a valid, though irrelevant arguement, since many people I know voted not so much “for” a candidate, as “against” the other guy.

5

JasonFin has answered this better than I ever could. But, a couple more small points: the difference in the Florida vote is not 1/10 of 1%. It was originally 3/100 of 1% and then after the recount (using your 930 figure) is about half of that.

By the way, I don’t know if you are completely correct in saying that the national popular vote was Gore’s motivation in pursuing the recount. But, it did lend a certain air of moral weight to his position in the sense that it insulated him from claims that by dragging out the process with recounts he was attempting to thwart the will of the people, because he could then say, “Well, if it is the will of the people you are so concerned about, I actually got more votes than my opponent…And, now we are just trying to figure out whether or not I also got more electoral votes.”

Admittedly, even though Gore’s win of the national popular vote…while almost definitely statistically significant…is so small as to not really be considered significant in a practical sense of a will of the people one way or the other.

6

Mahaloth, there are really two questions here:

  1. Is there any reason to suspect that the uncounted ballots across the country are statistically biased? Absent any reason to believe that, then we have to go with the ‘null hypothesis’ that each of those uncounted ballots is equally likely to be a vote for Bush or for Gore. And given that assumption, JasonFin’s analysis of the vote, nationally, is on target.

  2. Is there any reason to believe that the uncounted ballots in Florida are statistically biased? Absent any reason to believe that, I could give the same qualifier.

Except there is reason to believe that the uncounted ballots are biased toward Gore. The Miami Herald published a precinct-by-precinct analysis of the uncounted ballots in FL, and went with the assumption that the counted ballots in each precinct - in all cases, the vast majority - were a good sample of the intent of all the voters in that precinct, whether their votes were counted or not.

Based on that assumption, they came up with the conclusion that 23,000 more people in FL tried to vote for Gore than for Bush.

And that’s a conservative assumption, in at least one county (Palm Beach), and possibly others.

7

To get you some new updated numbers, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Al Gore “won” the popular vote by over half-a-million.

540,435 to be exact.

8

TXLonghorn, you should check your sources. Bill Clinton was indeed elected by 43% of the vote in 1992 (the same margin that Nixon was elected by in 1972,) but when he was reëlected in 1996, he did receive just over 50% of the popular vote. He didn’t receive even 51%, but he was over fifty.

I’d say it’s still relevent to look to the result of the popular vote to get an indication of what most people want. To do otherwise is to advocate the monolithic two-party system that’s been choking our country for so long. If a candidate wins 43% of the popular vote and another wins 41%, it’s safe to say that the one who got 43% won the popular vote. After all, someone has to come out ahead.

The problem with America’s election system is that it doesn’t rely on the will of the majority. Many like to defend the electoral college in its current incarnation, pointing out that the founding fathers set it up that way out of fear of “mob rule.” Well, sure they did. But here it’s been long enough that mob rule is hardly a threat at this point. Perhaps it’s time to get with the times, already?

9

Of course, the popular vote counts only can be honestly evaluated in the context of the decision rule in place, which is the state-by-state electoral college. This undoubtedly influenced the way the candidates handled their campaigns and probably influenced how people voted. So while it may be true that it is a statistical certainty to say the popular vote went to Gore, it is is incorrect to go to the conclusion that Al Gore is the popular choice for president.

10

Sorry Chance the Gardener, but Clinton got only 49% of the popular vote in 1996 (at least according to: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/summary.html ). It doesn’t really matter, though. Since the US, like just about every other country in the world (and every large industriallized country, except Russia), does not select its chief executive by direct popular election.

The US has a system which in which the chief exec is, for all intents and purposes, selected by the people. It is not like most parliamentary systems, where the head of government is selected by the party or coalition which holds the most seats in parliament. Funny how ignorant Americans hold these systems up as great examples of democracy (owing to the fact that many diverse parties flourish under the proportional voting system in place in many parliamentary republics).

11

Cite please?
I have always understood it to be something like 49.5%.
Whatever it is, I have heard uncountable newscasters refer to no one winning 50% since 1988.

12

Mebbe you’re thinking of 1968 (I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but, IIRC, there was a “Dixiecrat” candidate that year that split the votes) but Nixon slaughtered McGovern in 1972. I think Nixon got over 60% of the votes, and McGovern won, at most, three states.
If you want me to provide exact numbers, let me know and I’ll pull them out.

Sua

13

TXLonghorn—I’m not sure where I heard the over-fifty statistic, but the Federal Election Commission does back up the fact that Clinton won 49.24% of the popular vote, while Bob Dole won 40.74% of it. I stand corrected. Perot raked in a full 8.4% of the popular vote, which is what skewed the final percentages, putting the winner below fifty, like he did in 1992.

Clinton shouldn’t resent Perot for this, nor does this indicate that people wanted Clinton to win any less—which is what Democrats’ detractors are fond of doing. Observe:

 Voter turnout, 1984: [92,652,680](http://www.fec.gov/votregis/turn/natto.htm)
 Voter turnout, 1988: [91,594,693](http://www.fec.gov/votregis/turn/natto.htm)
 Voter turnout, 1992: [104,405,155](http://www.fec.gov/votregis/turn/natto.htm)
 Voter turnout, 1996: [96,277,634](http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/gevote.htm)

Those who watched these years’ election will remember there was no H. Ross Perot in 1984 and 1988. Notice how low the voter turnout was in those elections? Then you’ll notice in 1992 how the turnout surged. That’s when Perot’s campaign surged and he scored 8,085,402 votes. Do a little unfuzzy math and you’ll see that 96,319,753 voters did not vote for Perot that year. Perot’s candidacy energized the electorate and encouraged Americans to buck the trend toward voter apathy. Those voters who voted for Perot: where did they come from? Well jeez, think about it! They were non-voters, before! They finally got off their lazy asses and voted! If they hadn’t voted, the outcome would have been the same: Clinton wins, Bush loses. Same deal in 1996.

Why does it matter, then, whether anyone won more than 50%? Well, this is just a tedious way to cook the numbers to infer that Clinton’s presidency was somehow illegitimate. Personally, I welcome candidates from outside the two-party monolith, and I’m glad to see their efforts, even if I feel they’re crackpots, like Perot. Winding up with less than 50% of the popular vote is hardly shameful; we Americans have a funny habit of spitting on silver medals.

14

SuaSponte—Yeah, I got my Nixon elections mixed up. You’re right: George Wallace made things hot for Nixon in 1968. Nixon squeaked into office with 43% of the popular vote, but was reëlected in 1972 in a blowout.

If memory serves, McGovern won Massachusetts and Washington, DC, and no more. Thanks for the offer for the info.

15

“The average human has about one breast and one testicle.” -Statistics 101

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” - Ernest Rutherford

16

I only mentioned the last three elections being decided with no candidate gaining a majority because it is a majority that decides an election. If the presidency was awarded to the winner of the popular vote, we would have needed a run-off election in the last three elections, and the result probably would have been different in two of three of them.

To illustrate my point, please assume that all voters for the general election show up for the run-off, and no one else (the turnout would probably be quite different, but since we have no other data, the info from the general election will have to do). In 1992, Perot took most of his ~15% from voters who would have given their vote to Bush the Elder. In 1996, only about 10% of Perot voters would have had to go over to Clinton to give him a majority in the popular vote (so no foul, except he likely wouldn’t have been the Democratic nominee, since he likely wouldn’t have been the incumbent President, and would have instead been the guy who blew it 4 years earlier). This year, we had a different spoiler, but in a runoff, it would have been Gore by a nose.

17

Tretiak:

I’ve read and re-read this, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the average joe voter considered the electoral college process and tailored their votes accordingly?

I wonder if we can say, with any statistical significance, that Bush clearly was NOT the popular choice for President?

18

Well yes and no, I don’t think the “joe voter” was really influenced, but certainly the fact that California and NEw York for example was clearly in the Gore camp prior to the election could have influenced the way people voted, if they did. Before the election there was a lot of talk here about voting for Nader, etc. with many saying it was ok to vote for Nader in their state cuz it was going Bush or Gore no matter what. Alternatively, in close states some who favored Nader mayhave voted for Gore. Same thing with Buchanen, Browne et all. It would have also influenced turnout. The final numnbers would have been different there can be no doubt.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Bush would’ve won a true popular vote at all. I don’t know. I am just saying that the rules of the game dictate the actions taking by the participants. Folks can hypothesize, which is fun, but to make some sort of stake toward legitimacy or illegitimacy based on the popular vote in this election is itself illegetimate. You can make the claim, and I would probably agree with it, that Gore is more likely to have been the winner in such an election, but it is strictly a hypothetical and not really grounds for a concrete claim.

19

Let me post the numbers I was working with. If you check out Yahoo, they have the vote difference at 358,352. Al Gore got 50,148,801 to Bush’s 49,790,449. I have to be entirely honest here, these are the numbers I here almost all the time on the national news networks(CNN, FoxNews, etc.), so I tend to trust them a little more.

Interesting responses so far. Does everyone agree though that there is at least enough uncertainty about the outcome of the popular election to stop die-hard Gore supporters from clinging to this? Or should they still recount the Florida votes on their own, along with all 2 million ballots thrown out by machines around the country?

20

JasonFin:
Yopu made a very large unstated assumption: that the votes are independent of each other. I don’t think that this is a legitimite assumption, and therefore your analysis is invalid.