I am still inclined to think that Obama will win. However, I explain below why I now feel sure his electoral vote will be lower in 2012 than it was in 2008.
To understand why I then thought Obama's margin would increase, all we need is a bit of history. For nearly a century now it has been the case that, when a full first-term president wins a second term, he wins the second time with a bigger vote in what is known as the electoral college.
Thus Franklin Roosevelt won in 1932 with 472 votes. In 1936, he won 523. Dwight Eisenhower won in 1952 with 442 votes. In 1956, he won 457. Richard Nixon won in 1968 with 301 votes. In 1972, he won 520. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won with 489 votes. In 1984, he won 525. In 1992, Bill Clinton won with 370 votes. In 1996, he won 379. In 2000, George W Bush won with 271 votes and, in 2004, 286.
In the hundred years since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson we have three cases of a president serving a full term then being defeated. Herbert Hoover was elected in 1928 and defeated in 1932, Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980 and George Herbert Walker Bush was elected in 1988 and defeated in 1992. So one needs to go back nearly a century to find a case of a president serving a full first term, then winning a second term with a reduced vote. In 1912, Wilson won with 435 votes. In 1916, he won with 277. To understand why I think Obama will follow Wilson in having a second win less impressive than his first, we should look at the accompanying table and pendulum.
The number of electors to which each state is entitled is determined by a formula whereby its number of representatives is added to its number of senators to produce an electoral number. Thus Alabama has seven representatives and two senators so it has nine presidential electors. California has 53 representatives and two senators so it has 55 electors.
Americans have a census every 10 years, most recently in 2010, and it determines the number of representatives and presidential electors to which each state is entitled. The presidential elector entitlement by the census of 2000 is shown in the left-hand column of my table. The number for this election (and for 2016 and 2020) is shown to its right.
States growing more rapidly in population than the nation as a whole have gained seats in the House of Representatives and, in consequence, presidential electors. For example, Texas goes from 34 to 38 electors while Florida goes from 27 to 29. States with a declining share of the country's population have lost seats. For example, New York has gone from 31 electors to 29 while Ohio has gone from 20 to 18.
My pendulum is substantially the same as that published in December 2008 except the numbers on the outer rim differ slightly as a consequence of the census changes noted above.
Wyoming has three electors and Oklahoma seven, so the cumulative number next to Oklahoma is 10. Utah has gained an elector (six now compared with five in 2008) so the cumulative number next to Utah is 16.
On Monday, December 15, 2008, Obama was elected the 44th president. Voting took place in 51 locations across the country in the electoral college. Since every elector voted as pledged, the result was 365 votes for Obama and 173 for the Republican candidate, John McCain.
On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, the American people had elected these electors. The turnout was the highest in 40 years as more than 131 million Americans voted. That meant 62 per cent of those eligible to vote actually did so, the highest percentage since 1968. On that Monday, apart from the unusual case of Nebraska, every state gave all its electoral votes to one candidate or the other. Thus in Missouri the popular vote on November 4 was 1,445,814 for McCain and 1,441,911 for Obama. Consequently, all the 11 votes for Missouri went to McCain. I predict all 10 Missouri votes will go to Mitt Romney this year.
Likewise, in North Carolina the popular vote was 2,142,651 for Obama and 2,128,474 for McCain so the entire 15 votes for North Carolina were cast for Obama.
The unique case is Nebraska. Under that state's electoral law, two votes are given to the winner of the whole state and one for each of the three congressional districts. The third district is thoroughly rural and the first substantially so. Both gave their votes solidly to McCain, as did the state as a whole. However, the second district is the city of Omaha. That district recorded a popular vote of 138,752 for Obama and 135,439 for McCain.
The first reason for a reduced Obama electoral vote this year will be the changes brought about by population shift. Whereas the actual votes in 2008 were 365 for Obama and 173 for McCain the notional votes were 359 and 179.
So let me have a go at guessing/predicting the details of this result. My guess should be taken as no more than that. It is meant as an illustration only.
I predict that on November 6 Romney will win all the states taken by McCain in 2008. He will also win North Carolina, Indiana, Florida and the Nebraska second district to which mention was made above. Consequently, I predict Romney will win 235 votes in the electoral college. That would leave Obama winning the election with 303 votes.
Malcolm Mackerras is Visiting Fellow in the Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic University, Canberra campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment