To: PetroniDE
I went ahead and did this. For example, in Texas, where there are 34 EV and Bush is assigned a 93% of winning, he gets only 31.62 EV assigned to him. Conversely, in Kerry states, Bush gets a portion of those EV. For example, in California, where Bush is only assigned an 18% chance of winning, he gets 9.9 of the 55 EV in that state.
So...drum roll please, here are the projected results:
BUSH - 307.075 EV
KERRY - 230.925 EV
26 posted on
02/23/2004 2:10:21 PM PST by
SamAdams76
(I do not like the new "Starbucks-style" coffee lids at Dunkin' Donuts)
To: SamAdams76
So...drum roll please, here are the projected results: BUSH - 307.075 EV KERRY - 230.925 EV Hmmm... I got different results [see above]. Though there is an important factor not considered in these numbers: what is the likelihood that a state will vote for a particular candidate if it matters?
It's possible that one or other candidate will self-destruct so badly as to give the other a landslide. That is probably the only way that certain states will ever go for the other candidate.
BTW, I tried adjusting the formula that divvies up Electoral votes based upon winning likelihood. The proportion of votes given to a candidate is a³/(a³+b³), where "a" is the probability of that candidate winning and "b" is the probability of the opponent winning. This if a candidate has a 55% winning edge, he'll get most of the electoral votes but the oponent will get a few. If a candidate has an 80% winning edge, he'll get almost all of the votes. Here's that table:
| Alabama |
95% |
100% |
9.0 |
0.0 |
| Alaska |
94% |
100% |
3.0 |
0.0 |
| Arizona |
75% |
96% |
9.6 |
0.4 |
| Arkansas |
70% |
93% |
5.6 |
0.4 |
| California |
18% |
1% |
0.6 |
54.4 |
| Colorado |
80% |
98% |
8.9 |
0.1 |
| Connecticut |
20% |
2% |
0.1 |
6.9 |
| Delaware |
35% |
14% |
0.4 |
2.6 |
| District of Columbia |
2% |
0% |
0.0 |
3.0 |
| Florida |
68% |
91% |
24.5 |
2.5 |
| Georgia |
90% |
100% |
15.0 |
0.0 |
| Hawaii |
13% |
0% |
0.0 |
4.0 |
| Idaho |
95% |
100% |
4.0 |
0.0 |
| Illinois |
30% |
7% |
1.5 |
19.5 |
| Indiana |
87% |
100% |
11.0 |
0.0 |
| Iowa |
42% |
28% |
1.9 |
5.1 |
| Kansas |
92% |
100% |
6.0 |
0.0 |
| SUBTOTAL |
101.0 |
99.0 |
|
| Kentucky |
88% |
100% |
8.0 |
0.0 |
| Louisiana |
80% |
98% |
8.9 |
0.1 |
| Maine |
39% |
21% |
0.8 |
3.2 |
| Maryland |
18% |
1% |
0.1 |
9.9 |
| Massachusetts |
4% |
0% |
0.0 |
12.0 |
| Michigan |
47% |
41% |
7.0 |
10.0 |
| Minnesota |
41% |
25% |
2.5 |
7.5 |
| Mississippi |
94% |
100% |
6.0 |
0.0 |
| Missouri |
65% |
86% |
9.5 |
1.5 |
| Montana |
91% |
100% |
3.0 |
0.0 |
| Nebraska |
95% |
100% |
5.0 |
0.0 |
| Nevada |
65% |
86% |
4.3 |
0.7 |
| New Hampshire |
58% |
72% |
2.9 |
1.1 |
| New Jersey |
16% |
1% |
0.1 |
14.9 |
| New Mexico |
58% |
72% |
3.6 |
1.4 |
| New York |
15% |
1% |
0.2 |
30.8 |
| North Carolina |
85% |
99% |
14.9 |
0.1 |
| SUBTOTAL |
76.8 |
93.2 |
|
| North Dakota |
95% |
100% |
3.0 |
0.0 |
| Ohio |
65% |
86% |
17.3 |
2.7 |
| Oklahoma |
93% |
100% |
7.0 |
0.0 |
| Oregon |
39% |
21% |
1.5 |
5.5 |
| Pennsylvania |
49% |
47% |
9.9 |
11.1 |
| Rhode Island |
5% |
0% |
0.0 |
4.0 |
| South Carolina |
87% |
100% |
8.0 |
0.0 |
| South Dakota |
95% |
100% |
3.0 |
0.0 |
| Tennessee |
85% |
99% |
10.9 |
0.1 |
| Texas |
93% |
100% |
34.0 |
0.0 |
| Utah |
95% |
100% |
5.0 |
0.0 |
| Vermont |
7% |
0% |
0.0 |
3.0 |
| Virginia |
85% |
99% |
12.9 |
0.1 |
| Washington |
35% |
14% |
1.5 |
9.5 |
| West Virginia |
47% |
41% |
2.1 |
2.9 |
| Wisconsin |
49% |
47% |
4.7 |
5.3 |
| Wyoming |
95% |
100% |
3.0 |
0.0 |
| SUBTOTAL |
123.7 |
44.3 |
|
| FINAL TOTALS: |
BUSH 301.5 |
KERRY 236.5 |
|
45 posted on
02/24/2004 7:49:17 PM PST by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson