Opinion polls ahead of November’s presidential election contest in the United States of America have generally tended to be relatively favourable in recent weeks for Barack Obama with these polls putting him a few per cent ahead in head-to-head contests with his most likely opponents, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and holding a significant poll lead over the other candidates for the Republican Party nomination. But it will not be the candidate who wins the most votes that wins this election (as proved to be the case in the controversial 2000 contest) but the candidate who wins the most Electoral College votes. Each of the states in the USA (and the District of Columbia) have a certain number of Electoral College votes attached to them, with this number based on the number of Senators (always two) and members of the House of Congress (a function of a state’s population level, but each state has at least one representative) representing the state. As such, the number of Electoral College votes assigned to different states is shaped somewhat by states’ population levels but with a bias towards the states with the smaller population levels as they will always be guaranteed three Electoral College votes
The proportion of Electoral College votes won by candidates in the presidential election does not measure up exactly to their actual share of the first preference vote. The disproportional nature of this electoral system is down to the fact that all the Electoral College votes on offer in a state are assigned to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state on a “winner takes all” basis. In some cases the level of difference/bias can be quite significant where winning candidates’ share of the Electoral College votes have been seen to far exceed their share of the popular vote in a number of past contests – ironically the 2000 contest was probably one of the most proportional contests in this regard. In order to assess how support levels evident in opinion polls might translate into Electoral College vote numbers, I attempt to estimate what the candidates’ first preference votes would be in the different states, assuming similar (proportional) change in party vote shares in all states along the lines of the constituency-level analysis of opinion polls model as covered in a number of posts on the politicalreform.ie website. How does this work? Well, for instance, on the basis of average trends across recent polls the Barack Obama vote in different states is now estimated to stand at 0.93 times the level of support he won in those states in 2008, while the Romney support levels is estimated to stand at 0.95 times the level of support John McCain won in those states in 2008.
This of course is a very rough model, and ignores the fact that changing support levels between elections tend to vary geographically, even within regions. In addition to this, the geography of support for the Republican and Democrat party candidates will in turn be dependent somewhat on the part of the USA that their different candidates hail from – running a presidential candidate from a certain region would probably see an increase the party’s share of the vote in that region.
Looking at recent opinion poll trends for a potential head-to-head contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney (based on the realclearpolitics.com website’s averaging out of recent opinion poll trends which currently estimates Obama to be leading Romney by 49.1% to 43.4%), the following would be my estimates as to the number of votes that would be won by the candidates in the different states (and the District of Columbia), the destination of Electoral College votes and the margin of victory for the winning candidate:
| State | Obama | Romney | Margin (%) | Dem_EV | Rep_EV |
| Alabama | 755,528 | 1,205,377 | -21.4% | 0 | 9 |
| Alaska | 114,789 | 184,479 | -21.4% | 0 | 3 |
| Arizona | 960,996 | 1,170,702 | -9.1% | 0 | 11 |
| Arkansas | 392,225 | 607,204 | -19.8% | 0 | 6 |
| California | 7,685,012 | 4,769,734 | 21.5% | 55 | 0 |
| Colorado | 1,196,833 | 1,021,777 | 7.3% | 9 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 926,693 | 599,029 | 19.9% | 7 | 0 |
| Delaware | 237,260 | 145,015 | 22.4% | 3 | 0 |
| D. C. | 228,290 | 16,528 | 79.7% | 3 | 0 |
| Florida | 3,977,298 | 3,850,804 | 1.5% | 29 | 0 |
| Georgia | 1,712,751 | 1,949,813 | -6.0% | 0 | 16 |
| Hawaii | 302,656 | 114,743 | 41.4% | 4 | 0 |
| Idaho | 219,596 | 383,548 | -24.9% | 0 | 4 |
| Illinois | 3,175,759 | 1,933,082 | 22.5% | 20 | 0 |
| Indiana | 1,276,155 | 1,280,659 | -0.2% | 0 | 11 |
| Iowa | 769,888 | 649,423 | 7.8% | 6 | 0 |
| Kansas | 478,094 | 665,865 | -15.2% | 0 | 6 |
| Kentucky | 698,415 | 997,826 | -16.4% | 0 | 8 |
| Louisiana | 727,210 | 1,092,818 | -18.6% | 0 | 8 |
| Maine | 391,866 | 281,013 | 15.2% | 4 | 0 |
| Maryland | 1,513,386 | 913,505 | 22.8% | 10 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 1,768,453 | 1,055,301 | 23.1% | 11 | 0 |
| Michigan | 2,667,941 | 1,949,699 | 14.3% | 16 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 1,461,271 | 1,213,812 | 8.5% | 10 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 515,149 | 689,602 | -13.5% | 0 | 6 |
| Missouri | 1,339,191 | 1,375,987 | -1.3% | 0 | 10 |
| Montana | 215,620 | 232,104 | -3.3% | 0 | 3 |
| Nebraska | 309,574 | 431,102 | -15.2% | 0 | 5 |
| Nevada | 495,713 | 392,889 | 10.6% | 6 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 357,412 | 301,247 | 7.9% | 4 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2,057,599 | 1,535,296 | 13.5% | 14 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 438,767 | 330,082 | 13.1% | 5 | 0 |
| New York | 4,462,648 | 2,619,824 | 24.1% | 29 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 1,990,012 | 2,025,678 | -0.8% | 0 | 15 |
| North Dakota | 131,330 | 160,730 | -9.3% | 0 | 3 |
| Ohio | 2,730,600 | 2,548,493 | 3.2% | 18 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 466,699 | 913,793 | -30.6% | 0 | 7 |
| Oregon | 963,396 | 702,810 | 14.3% | 7 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 3,042,960 | 2,527,617 | 8.6% | 20 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 275,444 | 157,403 | 25.0% | 4 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 801,009 | 984,915 | -9.6% | 0 | 9 |
| South Dakota | 158,748 | 193,247 | -9.0% | 0 | 3 |
| Tennessee | 1,009,970 | 1,407,740 | -15.3% | 0 | 11 |
| Texas | 3,277,259 | 4,262,996 | -12.2% | 0 | 38 |
| Utah | 304,327 | 567,244 | -27.5% | 0 | 6 |
| Vermont | 203,642 | 94,194 | 33.7% | 3 | 0 |
| Virginia | 1,819,938 | 1,641,695 | 4.8% | 13 | 0 |
| Washington | 1,626,120 | 1,169,850 | 14.9% | 12 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 282,211 | 378,270 | -13.4% | 0 | 5 |
| Wisconsin | 1,557,729 | 1,201,425 | 11.9% | 10 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 76,965 | 156,991 | -31.4% | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 64,548,395 | 57,054,980 | 5.7% | 332 | 206 |
| 61.7% | 38.3% |
The degree of disproportionality associated with the Electoral College vote system is readily evident here – while Obama would be estimated to be 5.7% ahead of Romney based on the popular vote levels in recent opinion polls, the analysis suggest that this would translate into a 23.4% margin of victory for the Obama campaign in terms of the number of Electoral College votes won.
While this analysis suggests that Barack Obama would have a clear win in terms of Electoral College vote numbers (winning by around one hundred and twenty five Electoral College votes an inspection of the state level figures points to a number of narrow victories in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, which would narrow the Obama win down to just six Electoral college votes should these states fall to Romney instead. In this case, attention would be pointed towards the “next most marginal” states which could ultimately prove to be the crucial battlegrounds in a close contest – Colarado, New Hampshire and Iowa, as well as Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
This can be seen if a situation in which there was practically a dead heat in terms of the share of the popular vote won by Obama and whoever the Republican candidate would be, with the two candidates each estimated to win 49.23% of the popular vote based on the share of the vote for Other candidates (1.54%) in the 2008 contest. It is interesting to noted that in this instance, Obama would be predicted to win the Electoral College vote by six votes on the basis of a more efficient geography of support with fewer votes being wasted in terms of big wins in his safe seats and narrow losses in the marginal seats as would be the case for the Republican candidate. However, these figures show that the presidency could be won or lost on the basis of a narrow swing to the Republican in one (or two)of the following key swing states – Colarado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. (That said, a similar level of a swing from the Republican candidate to Obama in Ohio and Virginia would see Obama take those states.)
| State | Obama | Republican | Margin (%) | Dem_EV | Rep_EV |
| Alabama | 757,594 | 1,367,416 | -29.0% | 0 | 9 |
| Alaska | 115,103 | 209,279 | -28.9% | 0 | 3 |
| Arizona | 963,624 | 1,328,079 | -15.8% | 0 | 11 |
| Arkansas | 393,298 | 688,830 | -27.2% | 0 | 6 |
| California | 7,706,024 | 5,410,927 | 16.9% | 55 | 0 |
| Colorado | 1,200,105 | 1,159,134 | 1.7% | 9 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 929,227 | 679,557 | 15.2% | 7 | 0 |
| Delaware | 237,909 | 164,509 | 17.8% | 3 | 0 |
| D. C. | 228,914 | 18,750 | 79.1% | 3 | 0 |
| Florida | 3,988,172 | 4,368,466 | -4.5% | 0 | 29 |
| Georgia | 1,717,433 | 2,211,925 | -12.6% | 0 | 16 |
| Hawaii | 303,484 | 130,168 | 38.2% | 4 | 0 |
| Idaho | 220,197 | 435,108 | -32.6% | 0 | 4 |
| Illinois | 3,184,442 | 2,192,945 | 17.9% | 20 | 0 |
| Indiana | 1,279,644 | 1,452,817 | -6.3% | 0 | 11 |
| Iowa | 771,993 | 736,725 | 2.3% | 6 | 0 |
| Kansas | 479,401 | 755,377 | -22.3% | 0 | 6 |
| Kentucky | 700,324 | 1,131,963 | -23.6% | 0 | 8 |
| Louisiana | 729,198 | 1,239,725 | -26.0% | 0 | 8 |
| Maine | 392,937 | 318,789 | 10.1% | 4 | 0 |
| Maryland | 1,517,524 | 1,036,307 | 18.3% | 10 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 1,773,288 | 1,197,165 | 18.7% | 11 | 0 |
| Michigan | 2,675,235 | 2,211,796 | 9.2% | 16 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 1,465,266 | 1,376,985 | 3.0% | 10 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 516,557 | 782,305 | -20.6% | 0 | 6 |
| Missouri | 1,342,853 | 1,560,961 | -7.4% | 0 | 10 |
| Montana | 216,210 | 263,305 | -9.6% | 0 | 3 |
| Nebraska | 310,420 | 489,055 | -22.3% | 0 | 5 |
| Nevada | 497,069 | 445,705 | 5.3% | 6 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 358,389 | 341,743 | 2.3% | 4 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2,063,224 | 1,741,685 | 8.3% | 14 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 439,967 | 374,454 | 7.9% | 5 | 0 |
| New York | 4,474,849 | 2,972,006 | 19.7% | 29 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 1,995,453 | 2,297,989 | -7.0% | 0 | 15 |
| North Dakota | 131,689 | 182,337 | -15.9% | 0 | 3 |
| Ohio | 2,738,066 | 2,891,086 | -2.7% | 0 | 18 |
| Oklahoma | 467,975 | 1,036,634 | -38.9% | 0 | 7 |
| Oregon | 966,030 | 797,288 | 9.2% | 7 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 3,051,280 | 2,867,404 | 3.1% | 20 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 276,197 | 178,563 | 20.7% | 4 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 803,200 | 1,117,317 | -16.4% | 0 | 9 |
| South Dakota | 159,182 | 219,226 | -15.7% | 0 | 3 |
| Tennessee | 1,012,731 | 1,596,982 | -22.5% | 0 | 11 |
| Texas | 3,286,219 | 4,836,069 | -19.2% | 0 | 38 |
| Utah | 305,159 | 643,499 | -35.3% | 0 | 6 |
| Vermont | 204,199 | 106,856 | 29.9% | 3 | 0 |
| Virginia | 1,824,914 | 1,862,387 | -1.0% | 0 | 13 |
| Washington | 1,630,566 | 1,327,113 | 9.9% | 12 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 282,982 | 429,121 | -20.4% | 0 | 5 |
| Wisconsin | 1,561,988 | 1,362,932 | 6.7% | 10 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 77,175 | 178,096 | -39.6% | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 64,724,868 | 64,724,868 | 0.0% | 272 | 266 |
| 50.6% | 49.4% |
As a point of contrast with the Romney analysis, carrying out a similar analysis based on a comparison of Obama and Santorum poll figures which currently estimate a Obama lead over Santorum by 49.7% to 43.3% would suggest that Obama would win in a presidential election contest by a larger margin over Santorum in terms of his Electoral College vote tally, as he would also be predicted to win narrowly in Indiana based on these poll numbers in addition to the states he would be predicted to win in a contest with Romney as outlined above.
| State | Obama | Santorum | Margin (%) | Dem_EV | Rep_EV |
| Alabama | 764,761 | 1,202,600 | -20.9% | 0 | 9 |
| Alaska | 116,192 | 184,054 | -20.8% | 0 | 3 |
| Arizona | 972,739 | 1,168,004 | -8.5% | 0 | 11 |
| Arkansas | 397,018 | 605,804 | -19.2% | 0 | 6 |
| California | 7,778,923 | 4,758,743 | 22.2% | 55 | 0 |
| Colorado | 1,211,458 | 1,019,423 | 8.0% | 9 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 938,017 | 597,649 | 20.7% | 7 | 0 |
| Delaware | 240,160 | 144,681 | 23.1% | 3 | 0 |
| D. C. | 231,079 | 16,490 | 80.7% | 3 | 0 |
| Florida | 4,025,900 | 3,841,931 | 2.2% | 29 | 0 |
| Georgia | 1,733,680 | 1,945,320 | -5.4% | 0 | 16 |
| Hawaii | 306,355 | 114,479 | 42.3% | 4 | 0 |
| Idaho | 222,280 | 382,665 | -24.4% | 0 | 4 |
| Illinois | 3,214,567 | 1,928,628 | 23.3% | 20 | 0 |
| Indiana | 1,291,749 | 1,277,708 | 0.5% | 11 | 0 |
| Iowa | 779,296 | 647,927 | 8.5% | 6 | 0 |
| Kansas | 483,936 | 664,330 | -14.6% | 0 | 6 |
| Kentucky | 706,949 | 995,527 | -15.8% | 0 | 8 |
| Louisiana | 736,097 | 1,090,300 | -18.1% | 0 | 8 |
| Maine | 396,654 | 280,365 | 15.9% | 4 | 0 |
| Maryland | 1,531,880 | 911,400 | 23.6% | 10 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 1,790,063 | 1,052,870 | 23.9% | 11 | 0 |
| Michigan | 2,700,543 | 1,945,206 | 15.1% | 16 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 1,479,127 | 1,211,015 | 9.2% | 10 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 521,444 | 688,013 | -12.9% | 0 | 6 |
| Missouri | 1,355,556 | 1,372,817 | -0.6% | 0 | 10 |
| Montana | 218,255 | 231,569 | -2.7% | 0 | 3 |
| Nebraska | 313,357 | 430,109 | -14.6% | 0 | 5 |
| Nevada | 501,771 | 391,984 | 11.3% | 6 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 361,779 | 300,553 | 8.6% | 4 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2,082,743 | 1,531,758 | 14.2% | 14 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 444,129 | 329,321 | 13.8% | 5 | 0 |
| New York | 4,517,181 | 2,613,788 | 24.9% | 29 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 2,014,330 | 2,021,010 | -0.2% | 0 | 15 |
| North Dakota | 132,935 | 160,360 | -8.6% | 0 | 3 |
| Ohio | 2,763,968 | 2,542,621 | 3.9% | 18 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 472,402 | 911,688 | -30.0% | 0 | 7 |
| Oregon | 975,169 | 701,190 | 15.0% | 7 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 3,080,145 | 2,521,793 | 9.3% | 20 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 278,810 | 157,041 | 25.8% | 4 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 810,798 | 982,646 | -8.9% | 0 | 9 |
| South Dakota | 160,688 | 192,802 | -8.4% | 0 | 3 |
| Tennessee | 1,022,311 | 1,404,496 | -14.7% | 0 | 11 |
| Texas | 3,317,307 | 4,253,173 | -11.6% | 0 | 38 |
| Utah | 308,046 | 565,937 | -26.9% | 0 | 6 |
| Vermont | 206,131 | 93,977 | 34.5% | 3 | 0 |
| Virginia | 1,842,178 | 1,637,912 | 5.5% | 13 | 0 |
| Washington | 1,645,991 | 1,167,155 | 15.7% | 12 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 285,659 | 377,399 | -12.8% | 0 | 5 |
| Wisconsin | 1,576,764 | 1,198,657 | 12.7% | 10 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 77,905 | 156,630 | -30.9% | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 65,337,174 | 56,923,517 | 6.4% | 343 | 195 |
| 63.8% | 36.2% |
Again, the level of disproportionality associated with this electoral system is evident, with Obama estimated to win the Electoral College vote by a margin of 27.5% as against his much narrower lead over Santorum in the popular vote. Similar analyses based on poll figures for head to heads between Obama and Paul and between Obama and Gingrich suggest Electoral College vote wins for Obama by 368-170 over Paul and by 387-154 over Gingrich.
Tags: US politics, Voting
Adrian Kavanagh's Blog 
February 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
Another factor to consider is who the successful Republican candidate selects as their running mate. Sarah Palin only delivered 3 electoral college votes last time from Alaska, but a running mate from a large marginal state could make a significant difference.
February 24, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
That’s a very good point!
September 3, 2012 at 10:47 am |
[…] The degree of disproportionality associated with the Electoral College vote system is somewhat evident here – while Obama would be estimated to be just 0.1% ahead of Romney based on the popular vote levels in recent national opinion polls, the analysis suggest that this would translate into a 1.2% margin of victory for the Obama campaign in terms of the number of Electoral College votes won. Such levels of disproportionality are likely to become more evident should the gap between the candidates widen during the course of the election, as evident in the 2008 result when Obama was ahead of McCain in the popular vote by 7.38% but was ahead of McCain by 35.72% in terms of the proportion of electoral college votes won by both candidates. (And also look at the levels of the electoral college vote victories predicted for Obama on the basis of more favourable national polls some months ago, as detailed in an earlier version of this analysis on the Adrian Kavanagh commentary site.) […]
October 11, 2012 at 9:42 am |
[…] The degree of disproportionality associated with the Electoral College vote system is somewhat evident here – while Obama would be estimated to be 1.5 percentage points behind Romney based on the popular vote levels in recent national opinion polls, the analysis suggest that this would translate into a 1.2% margin of victory for the Obama campaign in terms of the number of Electoral College votes won. Such a level of disproportionality may well become more evident should the gap between the candidates widen during the course of the election – as evident in the 2008 result when Obama was ahead of McCain in the popular vote by 7.38% but was ahead of McCain by 35.72% in terms of the proportion of electoral college votes won by both candidates. However a slight increase in Romney’s popular vote share would probably edge him into an electoral college vote lead and produce a more proportional result in this instance, as this would edge to victories in states such as Colarado, Iowa and New Hampshire where the above model has him narrowly losing out to Obama in. (Also look at the levels of the electoral college vote victories predicted for Obama on the basis of more favourable national polls some months ago, as detailed in an earlier version of this analysis on the Adrian Kavanagh commentary site.) […]