That’s no reason to throw out his analysis. Question it, maybe, but not throw it out. It’s also worth remembering that any change in FL from a recount would have about zero impact on the change in popular vote–we’re talking about a few orders of magnitude here.
He won the popular vote because he had more votes than anyone else. Percentages and disputes are a mute point now. The electors voted today. I haven’t seen the results, but I bet it’s Bush 271, Gore 267. That’s all that matters at this time. I didn’t vote for Bush, but it’s time to put all the disputes aside and move on. By the way Clinton won 49% of the popular vote in 1996. Not that it really means anything.
Ooh, must steal for new sig line!
I’m gonna take an educated guess here and assume that that was aimed at me. The 300k number was the tally around mid November when the news organizations were just shifting gears from the national election story to the Florida dispute. The new numbers according to the Philly Inquirer are the updates after counting the absentee ballots from many states. In this cases it didn’t affect who got the electors, so there really was no need to update the numbers. I’m assuming you can double check this by going to each state’s election site. However, I don’t feel that that is worth my pre-dawn free time. I’ll just have to have faith in John Duchneskie, Stephen Seplow and the editors at the Inquirer.
(Of course, it defeats the 2million uncounted absentee ballot rumor to give Bush the lead. They’re counting them.)
Electoral College Update:
Officially its Bush 271, Gore 266, 1 Blank (A DC elector is protesting the fact the city has no voting representative in Congress)
I realize that a good quote might be in order to illustrate a point. It’s from the article I linked to well up above. Anyway it’ll serve a purpose in the event the Inquirer expires the story.
Just one more example of how the undervotes are disproportionately from Democratic strongholds 
Mahaloth:
Yes and no. It depends on what standard you use. If you use the numbers you posted you see a percent difference of 0.3%. If you use SterlingNorth’s numbers the percent difference is 0.5%. Given the margin of error and the sloppy process, most intelligent people would tend to call this a tie.
However if you apply the same reasoning to just the Florida vote, you see the percent difference is 0.008% (and that’s best case - throwing out the Gore recounts).
So I agree, the popular vote, as recorded, does not necessarily accurately reflect “the will of the people”, but the vote that actually decided the election reflected it even less so.
I don’t claim to know what the right solution was, but the decision was clearly arbitrary and sadly, to compound this, the US supreme court further tainted the process by making a judgement that was equally arbitrary, if not a bit partisan.
Next time let’s just flip a coin…
CNN has now posted their tabulation of the final results, and they agree with SterlingNorth. Final margin = 539,897 votes.
…is conflicted. It is not monolithic (as the squeakiness of the contest shows).
I believe the word I’m looking for is schizoid.
Most of this statistics stuff is way over my head.
But to claim that Gore didn’t win the popular vote (get the most) seems to me to be kinda silly. Doesn’t the “margin of error” apply to both candidates equally?
Anyway, I think it’s hard to guage the popular vote in the presence of the EC. Who can say what the outcome would’ve been if every voter had known that his/her vote was to have to been counted directly?
And Gore may well have lost the popular vote if he hadn’t stolen so many Nader votes. 
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge:
The point that Tretiak was trying to make was not about margin of error, but that it is impossible to look at the results of the popular vote tallies in isolation and know what the people actually wanted. There are many influences that could have affected the way people voted, in spite of the way they wanted the election to end. Most of the ones I can think of would tend to swing the popular vote toward Al Gore, for instance a lot of potential Gore voters in Florida, after hearing prematurely that Gore had won Florida, may have decided that they didn’t need to fight the crowds to get to the polls. Also, certainly a number of people that I know felt that, based on early projections, Gore was going to win, so they voted for Nader in order to give that party a fighting chance in the future. However, in fairness, we must assume that there could have been similar factors that pulled votes away from Bush.
The distinction is that Gore certainly won the popular vote, but he might not be the popular choice.
To your specific question:
Yes, the margin of error applies to both, but the actual error may apply to one in disproportionate amounts. The entire process has many opportunities for bias (I use this term in it’s statistical context). It’s pretty clear that Gore had a couple of big biases go against him (the 19,000 ballots disqualified in Palm Beach, the butterfly ballot that caused some people to wrongly vote for Buchanan instead of Gore, etc.) and Bush had, at least, one go his way (allowing votes from people who had their absentee applications tampered with). There were biases from ballot design, punch machines, counting machines, etc…
Whatever happened to those California (and a few other states) absentee ballots? Were those ever counted?
mangeorge, I don’t think anyone is saying that Gore lost the popular vote. I’m just suggesting that it is should be considered just as difficult a thing to discern as the popular vote of Florida even though the margin of difference was slightly different. Both are ridiculously small differences, so I feel that everyone should just throw their hands in the air and say, “Well screw it. We don’t know who won either count. Let’s just keep the current counts we have since they are counted the most equally and fairly.”
By the way, I finally got an official total for thrown out ballots in the u.s.(anyone got a link for this factoid, I didn’t find it on the web).
-
2.2 million ballots were thrown out in the entire country.
-
This was lower than 1996(I already said this in a previous post).
-
Florida was 7th in the country in total votes thrown out. This is not a percentage of votes thrown out, just total votes thrown out. California was naturally number 1 since they had the most voters. Florida was not higher overall than normal.
Although I was rooting for Bush, I voted for Harry Browne, because Texas (where I reside) was clearly going to be Bush’s state, and I want to promote the Libertarian platform. If this had been a popular election, I could not have afforded to do that, and I would have voted for Bush. The format of the election renders the outcome of the popular vote meaningless IMHO, since it changes people’s voting habits.
By the way, here is a link to the final popular vote tally from the Associated Press, via the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-BRF-Popular-Vote.html
The margin of victory for Gore is 539,947 votes. So, the CNN, Associated Press, and Philadelphia Inquirer results for the margin of victory all agree within <600 votes.
Now we just have to await word on the media consortia counting the votes down in Florida and we will get to see if the loser of both the popular vote and the electoral vote (correctly tabulated) is the very bozo who is currently appointing the likes of Ashcroft, Spencer Abraham, and Gale Norton to his cabinet!!!
and anyone/everyone else: does anyone know the status of the recount that was supposed to be going on at the request/demand of a consortium of groups?
stoid
You have a valid point.
This is one reason we should find other forms of government than Winner Takes All.
In other countries, with more parties, a coalition goverment has deputies from both combining parties.
What would be better there, as in our Congress, would be a shared executive branch. We have that in the states, after all, where many offices like attorney general are elected instead of appointed.
I think interest petered out. I don’t know whether that’s unfortunate or not… if one group did an independent recount showing one candidate to be the winner, another group would do another recount showing the other candidate to be the winner, and so on and so on and so on… each time, the differentials between win/loss getting bigger.
Eventually, we’d learn that Gore won 89% of the vote, and ol’ Dubbers only got 7%. Man, that’d be hell for the history books to figure out, wouldn’t it?
Check the Miami Herald online for daily updates. The media-consortium count is continuing, but some members may be losing interest, though. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Times, for instance, may see nothing to gain from participating in a possible delegitimization of Bush - better to be able to portray it from outside as a sore-loser Democratic plot instead.
ElvisL1ves, you’re pretty much right; everyone is losing interest. I’ve heard that the chief problem with the current counting is the same as the initial recounting.
Those news and other organizations that count very liberaly are finding plenty of Gore votes, certainly enough to move the vote his way. Those counting very conservatively are finding that Bush’s victory holds.
If it was found that Bush or Gore was definately a winner no matter how you count, that would be relevant. How relevant will it be to tell the public, “Guess what, the result depends on how you count the votes. Big surprise, eh?” It sort of shows that even if Gore had won with liberal recounts, the media could have done their own recounts to delegitimize him by showing Bush would have won with conservative counting.
We could have delegitimized either candidate, so why bother?
Oh, I admit I was wrong about the final vote difference. :o Kudos to Sterling North. I stand corrected. It’s still a small amount, though. Who would have thought a Philadelphia newspaper would have had an accurate political story? 
By the way, if the election were held with the 2000 census information processed, Bush would have won 278 to 260, or something like that. Newsweek was my source; Florida still would have decided it of course.