Here is something interesting I learned today at the voting fraud debate at the University of Pennsylvania between Walter Mitofsky and Prof. Steve Freeman (.pdf). Take a look at these numbers from the 2000 and 2004 elections:

2000 Election (all numbers rounded to the nearest 500,000).

Bush: 50,500,000
Gore: 51,000,000
Other: 4,000,000

2004 Election

Bush: 62,000,000 +11,500,000
Kerry: 59,000,000 +8,000,000
Other: 1,000,000 -3,000,000

From this data we can see several things. First, there was much higher turnout in 2004. Second, there were many fewer third party voters. And third, Bush improved his numbers more than Kerry improved on Gore’s. So, where did Bush get his votes? To try to figure it out, Prof. Freeman looked at the exit polls. One of the questions on the two-page exit poll asked who the voter voted for in 2000. There were four possibilities: the voter did not vote in 2000, they voted for Bush, they voted for Gore, or they voted for someone else (other). Here are the results, cross-tabbed for the 2004 election:

On election night the exit polls showed the following about those that had filled out the exit polls:

17% did not vote in 2000.
39% voted for Gore in 2000.
41% voted for Bush in 2000.
4% voted for other.

* note these numbers (above) have no relationship to who received more votes on election day, they simply reflect the total sample of people that filled out the exit polls.

Among new voters (did not vote in 2000), 54% voted for Kerry and 45% voted for Bush.

Voters that voted for Bush in 2000, voted for him again (91%-9%).

Voters that voted for Gore in 2000, voted for Kerry (90%-10%).

Voters that voted for other in 2000, voted for Kerry (71%-21%).

Looking at these numbers we quickly see that Gore voters stuck with the Democratic Party at 90%, and Bush voters stuck with Bush at 91%. There is no evidence of movement from one party to the other. So, it seems unlikely that Bush picked up his new voters by attracting more Gore voters than Kerry could attract from Bush’s voters.

So, maybe Bush picked up the lion’s share of new voters and that explains his advantage? But, no, Kerry picked up 54% of the new voters.

Well, then, maybe Bush took advantage of the fall-off in third party voting?

No. Kerry got a whopping 71% of third party voters from 2000.

So, where is exactly did Bush makes his gains? The only possibility is that many 2000 Gore voters stayed home in 2004, while very few 2000 Bush voters stayed home.

Yet, it is hard to see how this could account for Bush’s 3,500,000 million differential improvement when Kerry did so well with former third party voters and new voters.

I’ll write more about the conference tomorrow. This is just a warm up.

0 0 votes
Article Rating