Scientific/mathematical proof that the Dems will win the 2004 election

[ithacan]

These guys have come up with an algorithm, a kind of formula, that explains and predicts winners in every US presidential election. The most electable Dems: Dean, Clark and Gephardt...

An Algorithm for Determining the Winners of U.S. Presidential Elections
Daniel Debowy
New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York
Eric Schulman
Alexandria, Virginia

Abstract

We present an algorithm for determining the winners of United States presidential elections, based on the previous experience of the major party candidates for President and Vice President. The algorithm correctly determines the winner of each of the 54 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2000.
<snip>
1. Introduction
Throughout the history of the United States, politicians have attempted to determine the likelihood of one candidate or another winning a presidential election. Schulman (2001) presented an algorithm that purported to do just that for the presidential elections since 1932. Their algorithm depended on the number of years the candidates had served as President, Vice President, U. S. Senator, U. S. Representative, and Governor. It also took into account whether the candidate had been Director of Central Intelligence, a general officer in the United States Armed Forces, and/or had ordered the combat use of nuclear weapons. Although their formula correctly predicted the winners of the U.S. presidential elections between 1932 and 2000, it did not correctly predict the winners of all the U.S. presidential
elections between 1789 and 1928. Schulman (2001) obviously believed that U.S. presidential elections over the last 70 years are not typical of all U.S. presidential elections. We disagree with that conclusion, and in this paper present an algorithm that correctly determines the winners of every U.S. presidential election between 1789 and 2000.

2. Methods and Results
We analyzed the experience of the major party candidates for President and Vice President in each of the U. S. Presidential elections since 1804, and the experience of the two top candidates for President in 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800 (when the candidate who received the most electoral votes became President, and the candidate who received the next largest share of electoral votes became Vice President). We discovered the following empirical formula after an extensive phase space search:
<snip>
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/Elections.htm


Long and the short of it, if Dean is the Dem candidate, a win is pretty much a sure thing. If either Clark or Gephart is the candidate, a win is a sure thing if he picks the right VP (and this would be a person within the realm of the possible).

***********

Disclaimer: I guess a disclaimer would have to be that past results do not predict future performance... But still, at a minimum this seems to indicate a very good chance. (By the way, the other algorithm they are critiquing (Shulman) says only Dean or Clark would win).

[ProfessorGAC]

1. This Is Pretty Nice Work

It doesn't however, take into account the changing demographic of the electorate and weights the various input parameters (time in office stuff mentioned in the article). The weightings, therefore, are subject to debate.

They might be wholly valid. I don't know. There's not enough information in this article for me to read the work as if i were peer reviewing it.

But, since i do this kind of work for a living, i would hardly want to take any serious shots at a fellow modeler.
The Professor

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. who does it say won in 2000?

[ithacan]

4. yes, well this is where it is a bit problematic...

because it says Bush and Cheney.

Now this is not predicting popular vote, but rather electoral college outcome (for example for the 1876 election it has Hayes, not Tilden)...

[Nederland]

3. Deja Vu

I seem to remember another couple guys who claimed they had a mathematical formula that predicted elections without error. They claimed that the 2000 election "wouldn't even be close" and Al Gore would win 54% of the vote. So excuse me when I say that I don't believe a word of this tripe. This is by no means in the bag, and we are going to have to earn it with hard work and tough campaigning.

[rock]

5. 54% you say

That was a pretty damn good predication in retrospect! Of course, they weren't predicting which votes would be counted.

[Nederland]

7. Nonsense

I'm not going to deny that some vote fraud occurred, but for us to claim that there was a 6% vote fraud makes us look stupid.

[tom_paine]

9. Yes, I agree that Al Gore probably did get 54% of the vote

Think of the Phony Felon Purges, the absentee-ballot double-and-triple voters and those like the Repug in Manatee County Florida who requested his roommate's absentee ballot and filled it out for him!

Add to that the "soft disenfranchisement" by Repugs around the nation in directing the crappiest, most error-prone voting machines to the Democratic precincts, and combine it all with the estimated 6,000,000 uncounted votes from Selection 2000. Ithink those were Gore votes by 2-1 and perhaps 3-1.

Yep, Al got about 54% of the vote, I'm guessing.

[ozone_man]

6. I love it.

I knew there was a good reason for not getting divorced. Not good for Kerry or Lieberman.

(snip)
Presidential Electability = 5*(years as President) + years as U.S. Representative + 11*(years as Governor),
+110 if the candidate has been a four- or five-star general officer in the United States Armed Forces,
+110 if the candidate has been a college or university president or chancellor,
+110 if the candidate is the child of a U.S. Senator,
–110 if the candidate has been divorced,
–110 if the candidate has been a special prosecutor,
–110 if the candidate was the first adherent of a particular religion (e.g., Protestantism, Deism, or Catholicism) to be a major-party candidate for President,
–110 if the candidate was an officer of a lobbying organization at the time of the election.

Vice Presidential Electability = 4*(years as Vice President) + years as U.S. Representative + years as Governor,
+110 if the candidate has been a corporate banker,
+110 if the candidate has been a college or university president or chancellor,
+110 if the candidate is the child of a U.S. Senator,
–110 if the candidate was the first adherent of a particular religion (e.g., Protestantism, Deism, Catholicism, or Judaism) to be a major-party candidate for Vice President,
–110 if the candidate was an officer of a lobbying organization at the time of the election.
Total Electability = Presidential Electability + Vice Presidential Electability.
(snip)

[KFC]

8. This is Science Humor

Look at the link. This comes from the Annals of Improbable Research - a science humor site.

The arbitrary fudge factors (lobbyist, special prosecutor, etc.) should tip you off.

[Silverhair]

10. Funny. You mistook satire for seriousness. Look at where this

came from. I bookmarked HOT A.I.R. as they are funny.

[ithacan]

11. ahhh, did you have to go and ruin it so soon??

:-)

[ProfessorGAC]

12. It Got Me

I read it looking for the mathematical issues that might arise and completely missed the source.

I admit i was fished in.
The Professor