|
Edited on Thu Oct-09-08 12:42 AM by tiptoe
2008 ELECTION MODELA Monte Carlo Electoral Vote SimulationUpdated: October 7
Press REFRESH after linking to a graph to view the latest update
Chart State Poll Aggregate + Projection Trend Chart National 5-Poll Moving Average Projection Chart State vs. National: Vote Share Projection Trends Chart Battleground-State Polls Chart Battleground-State Win Probability Chart Obama Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency Chart Electoral Vote + Win Probability Trend Chart Electoral Vote + Projected Vote Share Trend Chart Undecided Voter Allocation + Win Probability Chart Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Trials 2008 Election Model Fraud Analyzer Uncounted & Switched Votes Chart Effect on Obama Projected Vote Share Chart Effect on Obama Projected Electoral Vote This State National State National Monte Carlo Simulation Update Poll 5-Poll 2-party 2-party Expected 10/07/2008 Aggregate Average Projection Projection Electoral Vote Obama McCain 49.48 (52.42) 44.92 (47.58) 49.80 (53.55) 43.20 (46.45) 52.84 47.16 54.00 46.00 356 182
15-Poll
End
Sample
Poll
NATIONAL MODEL Pre Undecided Voter Allocation 5-Poll Mov Avg 2-Party Projection (60% UVA) 5-Poll Mov Avg Trend Research2k Gallup Hotline/FD Rasmussen Zogby
Battleground NBC/WSJ CBS/NYT CNN Marist
AP/GfK CBS/NYT Ipsos Time Pew Research
Registered V vs Likely V Poll Averages
Date 10/06 10/06 10/06 10/06 10/06
10/05 10/05 10/05 10/05 09/30
09/30 09/30 09/30 09/29 09/29
Size 1100 LV 2744 RV 908 LV 3000 LV 1237 LV
800 LV 658 RV 616 LV 694 LV 943 LV
808 LV 769 LV 1007 RV 1133 LV 1181 LV RV avg LV avg Total 2-party
MoE 2.95% 1.87% 3.25% 1.79% 2.79%
3.46% 3.82% 3.95% 3.72% 3.19%
3.45% 3.53% 3.09% 2.91% 2.85%
Obama 52 51 46 52 48
50 49 48 53 49
48 50 48 50 49
49.3 49.6 49.5 53.4
McCain 41 42 44 44 45
43 43 45 45 44
41 41 45 43 43
43.3 43.3 43.3 46.6
Other 7 7 10 4 7
7 8 7 2 7
11 9 7 7 8
7.3 7.2 7.2 0.0
Spread 11 9 2 8 3
7 6 3 8 5
7 9 3 7 6
6.0 6.3 6.3 6.8
Obama 49.8 49.4 49.0 49.4 49.6
49.8 49.4 49.6 49.6 49.0
49.0 49.4 48.8 49.6 49.2
McCain 43.2 43.6 43.8 44.0 44.2
44.0 43.6 43.2 43.2 42.8
42.6 43.6 43.8 43.4 44.0
Spread 6.6 5.8 5.2 5.4 5.4
5.8 5.8 6.4 6.4 6.2
6.4 5.8 5.0 6.2 5.2 Win Prob 99.9 99.7 99.4 99.9 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7
99.4 97.8 91.5 88.1 90.0
Obama 54.0 53.6 53.3 53.4 53.3
53.5 53.6 53.9 53.9 53.9
54.0 53.6 53.2 53.8 53.3
McCain 46.0 46.4 46.7 46.6 46.7
46.5 46.4 46.1 46.1 46.1
46.0 46.4 46.8 46.2 46.7
Spread 8.0 7.2 6.6 6.7 6.6
7.0 7.2 7.8 7.8 7.8
8.1 7.2 6.5 7.6 6.6
Win Prob 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
99.9 99.6 97.4 96.2 96.9
The 2008 Election Model assumes that current polls reflect the will of the electorate and a fraud-free election is held today. Obama has a solid margin in virtually all the battleground states except Indiana. The Election Model’s undecided voter allocation solidifies his projected margin and win probability but does not increase his EV. Note that the theoretical expected EV is lower than the projected EV. In fact, there appears to be a 375 maximum on Obama’s total projected EV, assuming that he wins Indiana but no other red states in which he is trailing by large margins. State Model Aggregate Average Projection (2-party) Theoretical EV Expected (mean) EV Median EV Polling EV Projected EV Election Trial Wins
National Model Tracking Poll Average Projection (2-party)
Obama 49.48 52.84 356.3 356.3 359.0 364.0 364.0 5000
49.80 54.00
McCain 44.92 47.16 181.7 181.7 179.0 174.0 174.0 0
43.20 46.00
weighted average based on 2004 recorded vote Base case scenario: 60% Undecided (UVA) to Obama EV = ∑ ( state win probability (i) *EV(i) ) i=1,51 states Monte Carlo simulation (60% UVA, 5000 election trials) Monte Carlo simulation Latest State Polling split (unadjusted) Latest State Poll + 60% Undecided (UVA) to Obama Monte Carlo (random number vs. state win probability)
Rasmussen, Gallup, Research 2000, Hotline, Zogby 60% UVA to Obama
View the State vs. National vote share projection Trend. Optimal Obama Resource Allocation to Key StatesA new feature of the model is a ranking measure of optimal allocation of resources for key states. The rankings are a function of the electoral vote and the polling spread. A state with a high electoral vote and low polling spread will result in a high ranking based on the percentage of resources to be allocated.As of today, the five most important (highest ranked) states and corresponding allocation percentages are: 1- OH (20.0), 2- FL (19.3), 3,4 (tie) - IN (11.0), - MO (11.0), 5- NC (10.7). In other words, Obama should allocate approximately 72% of available funds to these states. See the detailed state polling analysis below. Projected Vote Shares, Electoral Votes and Win ProbabilitiesElectoral-vote.com ( 349– 174– 15) and RealClearPolitics ( 364– 274) now closely match the Election Model. As indicated in a prior update, it is mathematically incorrect to just assign the state electoral vote to the poll leader (regardless of the spread) and to disregard state win probabilities which are based on the poll split; the two sites do not use probabilities in calculating the EV. Prior to last week, their EV estimates for Obama were low compared to the Election Model since a) the state polls were close and b) they do not allocate undecided voters. The FiveThirtyEight site has Obama leading by 344– 194 with a 89% win probability and 52.5% of the two-party vote (51.7-46.7). The Election Model gave Obama 356 EV with 52.8% of the two-party vote, a 99% popular vote and 100% electoral vote win probability. Obama won ALL 5000 election trials. For the 40% UVA scenario, Obama won 4998 of 5000 election trials (a 99.6% win probability) with 339 EV and 51.7% of the two-party vote. The discrepancy in win probabilities between the Election Model and FiveThirtyEight is due to a difference in methodology. FiveThirtyEight adjusts state poll weightings based on past pollster accuracy as well as other factors. It attempts to forecast the actual Election Day result. On the contrary, the Election Model does not weight any polls. It uses the recent poll average adjusted by an undecided voter allocation (40–80%) and assumes the election is held today. The FiveThirtyEight Electoral Vote Distribution chart is not a continuous normal distribution bell-curve; there are discrete gaps in the bin totals. The Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart is a continuous, bell-shaped EV frequency histogram. To base pollster performance on prior election accuracy is a two-edged sword. If a pollster predicts the winner of a rigged election, does that mean he was more accurate than one who correctly projected the True Vote? See Kerry (2004) and Gore (2000). This was the electoral-vote.com map on Nov 1, 2004. Election Model Calculations
The projected vote share is equal to the latest poll plus the undecided voter allocation.
V(i) = Poll(i) + UVA(i)
The probability P(i) of winning state (i) is based on the projected state vote share V(i).
It is calculated using the Excel Normal distribution function, assuming a 4.0% MoE for a typical 600-sample poll:
P(i) = NORMDIST ( V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true )
The expected state electoral vote is the product of the win probability and electoral vote.
The total expected EV is given by the summation formula:
EV = Σ P(i) * EV(i), where i = 1,51
The Electoral Vote Win probability is based on a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo Simulation.
The EV win probability is the number of winning election trials/5000. Electoral votes, current poll numbers, projected vote shares and win probabilities for all the states are given in the table below. THE 2008 ELECTION MODEL
Last S T A T E M O D E L N A T I O N A L M O D E L MONTE CARLO SIMULATION Update L A T E S T S T A T E–P O L L A V E R A G E L A T E S T P O L L S M O V–A V E R A G E EXPECTED 10/07/2008 Aggregate 2-party Projection 5-Poll 5-Poll 2-party Projection ELECTORAL VOTE 60% UVA 60% UVA Current EV Obama McCain 52.42 47.58
52.84 47.16
49.80 43.20
53.55 46.45
54.00 46.00
356 182
75% UVA 75% UVA 11/01/04 EV Kerry Bush 50.52 49.48
51.80 48.20
47.80 46.60
50.64 49.36
51.77 48.23
337 201
Sensitivity Analysis — Impact of Uncounted and Switched Votes on Obama Uncounted 1% 2% 3% Switched 2% 4% 6% Vote% 51.6 50.5 49.4 EV 331 306 277 Vote% 51.3 50.3 49.2 EV 326 300 270 Vote% 51.1 50.0 49.0 EV 321 294 264 Sensitivity Analysis — Impact of Aggregate State Projected Vote Share Undecided Voter Allocation Current Base Case Obama 40% 52.4% 60% 75% 80% Projected 2-Party Vote Share Obama McCain 51.7 48.3 52.4 47.6 52.84 47.16 53.7 46.3 54.0 46.0 MoE Popular Vote – Obama Win Probability (Normdist) 1.0 % 2.0 % 3.0 % 100.0 95.4 87.0 100.0 99.1 94.3 100.0 99.7 96.8 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 99.5 Electoral Vote – Obama (Monte Carlo Simulation: based on state win-probabilities) Mean Median 339.2 340.0 350.4 353.0 356.3 359.0 368.8 370.0 372.6 375.0 Maximum Minimum 393 269 413 282 424 291 439 302 441 306 Electoral Vote – Obama Win Probability Trial Wins Probability 4998 99.96 5000 100.0 5000 100.0 5000 100.0 5000 100.0 95% EV Confidence Interval Upper Lower 378 301 386 315 390 322 403 335 406 339 States Won Obama 29 29 29 30 30
2008 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS National Model — see atopState Model(2-party vote shares) L A T E S T S T A T E P O L L KEY STATES (within MoE) 2004 EM KERRY VOTE–PROJECTION vs EXIT POLL & RECORDED VOTE–COUNT 2008 vs 2004 PROJECTED VOTE Pre-Undecided Voter Allocation 60% UVA Projection MC Exp EV Win Prob Resource Allocation
Vote Projected WPE (IM) Exit Poll Vote Counted Kerry Projection deviation StatesEV Flip To(*)
AL AK AZ AR CA
CO CT DC DE FL
GA HI ID IL IN
IA KS KY LA ME
MD MA MI MN MS
MO MT NE NV NH
NJ NM NY NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI
SC SD TN TX UT
VT VA WA WV WI WY Last Poll Date 9/23 9/21 9/30 9/22 10/5
10/5 9/28 9/13 9/25 10/6
10/5 9/20 9/17 9/20 10/6
9/23 9/22 9/28 9/28 9/25
9/23 9/25 9/25 10/2 9/16
10/5 9/26 9/17 10/2 10/6
10/1 9/22 9/25 10/5 9/20
10/6 9/17 9/26 10/6 9/16
9/23 9/21 9/29 9/16 9/13
9/22 10/5 10/2 9/25 10/6 9/28 VoteShare Popular Electoral
9 3 10 6 55
9 7 3 3 27
15 4 4 21 11
7 6 8 9 4
10 12 17 10 6
11 3 5 5 4
15 5 31 15 3
20 7 7 21 4
8 3 11 34 5
3 13 11 5 10 3 Obama 49.48 % 364 37 38 38 37 55
48 54 90 57 51
44 68 33 56 46
53 40 42 40 50
57 56 51 51 44
50 44 37 51 53
52 52 58 50 42
48 34 52 52 55
41 39 39 43 28
55 51 53 44 50 37 McCain 44.92 % 174 62 55 52 47 39
44 38 9 37 47
51 27 62 38 48
40 56 53 55 43
38 39 40 42 52
48 52 56 47 43
42 44 37 46 53
46 64 40 39 35
54 55 57 52 64
36 45 43 50 43 58 Spread 4.56 % 190 (25) (17) (14) (10) 16
4 16 81 20 4
(7) 41 (29) 18 (2)
13 (16) (11) (15) 7
19 17 11 9 (8)
2 (8) (19) 4 10
10 8 21 4 (11)
2 (30) 12 13 20
(13) (16) (18) (9) (36)
19 6 10 (6) 7 (21) Obama 52.84 % 364 37.6 42.2 44.0 46.6 58.6
52.8 58.8 90.6 60.6 52.2
47.0 71.0 36.0 59.6 49.6
57.2 42.4 45.0 43.0 54.2
60.0 59.0 56.4 55.2 46.4
51.2 46.4 41.2 52.2 55.4
55.6 54.4 61.0 52.4 45.0
51.6 35.2 56.8 57.4 61.0
44.0 42.6 41.4 46.0 32.8
60.4 53.4 55.4 47.6 54.2 40.0 Obama 100.0 % 356.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.8 100.0
91.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.9
7.1 100.0 0.0 100.0 42.2
100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 98.0
100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 3.9
72.2 3.9 0.0 85.9 99.6
99.7 98.4 100.0 88.0 0.7
78.3 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.2 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0
100.0 95.2 99.6 12.0 98.0 0.0 Percent 100
6.4
19.3
4.3
11.0
1.1
0.9
11.0 0.4
3.6
0.7
10.7
20.0
5.6
2.1 2.9 Rank
6
2
8
3
12
13
3 15
9
14
5
1
7
11 10 Final Kerry 51.75 % 337 42.0 39.8 48.8 50.5 55.8
50.8 56.5 86.3 57.8 52.3
46.5 52.5 38.3 57.0 41.3
54.5 39.3 42.8 49.0 58.3
56.3 70.8 54.3 55.0 47.3
49.3 41.3 37.3 50.5 51.5
56.0 50.5 60.0 49.3 42.5
52.3 36.3 54.5 53.8 62.0
44.3 46.5 49.3 40.0 29.3
58.3 48.5 55.0 49.5 54.8 33.5 JK Unadj 52.51 % 337
42.1 41.6 44.9 45.7 60.9
50.7 63.4 91.9 61.9 51.4
42.3 58.5 32.7 57.0 40.7
51.2 37.7 40.2 44.0 56.6
60.3 66.6 55.0 56.4 49.8
49.3 38.2 37.6 53.7 57.8
58.0 53.6 65.5 49.7 35.2
54.3 33.8 53.0 55.5 63.3
46.3 36.5 43.5 42.3 28.9
68.1 50.3 57.7 40.5 52.6 33.3 Kerry 48.76 % 252
37.2 35.9 44.8 45.0 54.9
47.5 54.9 90.1 53.9 47.6
41.8 54.6 30.6 55.4 39.7
49.7 37.0 40.1 42.6 54.1
56.5 62.6 51.7 51.6 40.2
46.6 39.0 33.0 48.4 50.7
53.5 49.5 59.0 44.0 35.9
49.2 34.8 51.9 51.4 60.0
41.3 38.8 43.0 38.6 26.3
59.5 45.9 53.4 43.6 50.2 29.4 Exit Poll 0.75 % 0
0.1 1.8 (3.9) (4.8) 5.2
(0.0) 6.9 5.7 4.1 (0.8)
(4.2) 6.0 (5.5) (0.0) (0.6)
(3.3) (1.6) (2.6) (5.0) (1.6)
4.0 (4.1) 0.7 1.4 2.6
0.0 (3.1) 0.3 3.2 6.3
2.0 3.1 5.5 0.5 (7.3)
2.0 (2.4) (1.5) 1.7 1.3
2.0 (10.0) (5.8) 2.3 (0.4)
9.8 1.8 2.7 (9.0) (2.1) (0.2) Vote Cnt ( 3.0 ) % (85) (4.8) (3.9) (3.9) (5.5) (0.9)
(3.3) (1.6) 3.8 (3.9) (4.7)
(4.7) 2.1 (7.7) (1.6) (1.6)
(4.8) (2.3) (2.7) (6.4) (4.1)
0.2 (8.2) (2.5) (3.4) (7.1)
(2.7) (2.3) (4.2) (2.1) (0.8)
(2.5) (1.0) (1.0) (5.2) (6.6)
(3.1) (1.5) (2.6) (2.3) (2.0)
(2.9) (7.7) (6.3) (1.4) (3.0)
1.3 (2.6) (1.6) (5.9) (4.5) (4.1) Final Kerry 1.09 % 19.3
(4.4) 2.5 (4.8) (3.9) 2.9
2.1 2.3 4.3 2.9 (0.0)
0.5 18.5 (2.3) 2.6 8.4
2.7 3.2 2.3 (6.0) (4.1)
3.8 (11.8) 2.1 0.2 (0.9)
2.0 5.2 4.0 1.7 3.9
(0.4) 3.9 1.0 3.2 2.5
(0.6) (1.1) 2.3 3.7 (1.0)
(0.3) (3.9) (7.9) 6.0 3.6
2.2 4.9 0.4 (1.9) (0.5) 6.5 Obama 9 112
AL AK AZ AR CA
CO* CT DC DE FL*
GA HI ID IL IN
IA* KS KY LA ME
MD MA MI MN MS
MO* MT NE NV* NH
NJ NM* NY NC* ND
OH* OK OR PA RI
SC SD TN TX UT
VT VA* WA WV WI WY
Polling data source: Electoral-vote.comRealClearPolitics.comWhy Election Model projections differ from the Media, Academia and the BloggersThere are a variety of election forecasting models used in academia, the media and internet election sites. The corporate MSM (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, etc.) sponsors national polls to track the “horserace” and state polls to calculate the electoral vote. • The EM uses Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. Monte Carlo is widely used to analyze diverse risk-based models when an analytical solution is impractical or impossible. The EM is updated weekly based on the latest state and national polls. The model projects the popular and electoral vote, assuming both clean and fraudulent election scenarios. The EM allocates the electoral vote based on the state win probability in calculating a more realistic total Expected EV. • Corporate MSM pollsters and media pundits use state and national polling data. Electoral vote projections are misleading, since they are calculated based on the latest state polls regardless of the spread; the state poll leader gets all of its electoral votes. This is statistically incorrect; they do not consider state win probabilities. And there is no adjustment for the allocation of undecided voters. For example, assume that McCain leads by 51.0–49.0% in each of five states with a total of 100 electoral votes. Most models would assign the 100 EV to McCain. But Obama could easily win one or more of the states, since his win probability is 31% :
- The state projected vote share V(i) is the state poll share PS(i) plus the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):
V(i) = PS(i)+UVA(i), for i=1,51 states
For this example, a final Obama projected vote share V(i) = .49 for all states is assumed (with distinct state poll shares PS(i) and respective undecided voter allocations UVA(i) implied). Five states total 100 EV.
- The probability P(i) of winning each state assuming a 4% polling MoE (95% confidence):
P(i) = NORMDIST ( V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true )
.31 = NORMDIST( .49, 0.5, .04/1.96, true) for each of the 5 states (the NORMDIST function is available in Excel) The 2008 Election Model would allocate 31% of 100 EV to Obama and 69% of 100 EV to McCain. ( more) Fixing the polls: Party ID, Voted in 2000, RV vs. LVMost national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. Gallup, Rasmussen and other national polls recently increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting. This had the immediate effect of boosting McCain’s poll numbers. But there are 11 million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. USA Today/Gallup changed the poll method from RV to LV right after the Republican convention. Party-ID weights were manipulated to favor McCain as well. There is a consistent discrepancy between Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) Polls. The Democrats always do better in RV polls. No wonder: Since 1988, Democratic presidential candidates have won new voters by an average 14% margin. The manipulation of polling weights is nothing new. Recall that the 2004 and 2006 Final National Exit Polls weightings were adjusted to match the recorded vote miscount. But all category cross-tabs had to be changed, not just Party ID. Of course, the Final Exit Poll (state and national) is always matched to the Recorded vote, even though it may be fraudulent — as it was in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. In 2004, the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had a 38– 35 Democrat/Republican 'Party ID' mix. Kerry won the 12:22am Preliminary NEP by 51– 48%. ( 13,047 random sample, 1% MoE ) The weighting mix was changed to 37– 37 in the Final NEP to 'force' a match to the Recorded vote miscount; Likewise, the Gore/Bush 'Voted 2000' weights were changed from 39– 41 to 37– 43 in the Final ('13047' & '13660' here). Bush won the 1:25pm 'forced' Final NEP by 51–48%. Bush was the official winner by 50.7–48.3% with 286 EV. The final 2004 Election Model projection indicated that Kerry would win 337–201 EV with 51.8% of the 2-party vote. In their Jan. 2005 report, exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky provided the average exit poll discrepancy for each state based on 1250 total precincts. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate state exit poll vote share by 52.0–47.0% (2-party 52.5%) with 337 electoral votes — exactly matching the Election Model!
In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm Preliminary NEP had a 39–35 Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won that NEP by 55–43%. But the weights were changed to 38–36 in the Final NEP in order to match the 52–46% recorded vote; the Dem 12% margin was cut in half. Once again, the 'Voted 2004' weights were transformed: from Bush/Kerry 47–45 at 7pm to 49–43 in the Final. The landslide was denied; 10-20 Dem seats were stolen.
The “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media is a canard — unless they are factoring fraud into their models and not telling us. The media desperately wants a horserace: They fail to adjust the polls for undecided and newly registered voters. They avoid McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms, while he supports the most unpopular president in history.
The Great Election Fraud Lockdown: Uncounted, Stuffed and Switched Votes
Professional statistical organizations, media pundits and election forecasters who projected a Bush victory never discuss Election Fraud. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown, as it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections. They want you to believe that Democrats always do better in the exit polls, because Republican voters are reluctant responders. But they never consider other, more plausible explanations — such as uncounted votes and stuffed ballots. Millions of mostly Democratic ballots are uncounted, spoiled and stuffed in every election and favored a Bush I and II in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That's why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote. Read more here.
• In most states, total votes cast exceeded votes recorded (uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed). In Florida, Ohio and 10 other states, total votes recorded exceeded votes cast (ballot stuffing exceeded uncounted ballots).
• The majority (70-80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. According to the 2000 Vote Census, 5.4 million of 110.8m total votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted (approximately 4.0m were Gore votes).
• In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59m with 286 EV. But 3.4m of 125.7 million total votes cast were uncounted (2.7%) and 2.5m were for Kerry. If they were counted, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9 - 61.5m. And that's before vote rigging.
• The media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 52-47%.
• The exit pollsters never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final Exit Poll to 'force' a match to the recorded vote count.
• Historically, challengers have won 60–90% of the undecided vote (UVA) when the incumbent was unpopular. In 2004, final state and national Pre-Election Polls had the race nearly tied at 47%, and Bush had a 48% approval rating. That’s one reason why the Gallup poll projected that Kerry would win 88% of the late undecided vote.
The 2004 Election Model allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry as the base case scenario. It projected ... (more)
Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability
Most election forecasting blogs and academics and the media employ the latest state polls as input to their models but don’t use basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probability. A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Of course, the individual state vote projections depend on the particular forecasting method used. With all due respect to Professor Sam Wang, his Meta-Analysis program is an unnecessarily complex combinatorial algorithm when compared to Excel and Monte Carlo simulation for calculating the expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability.
The Excel-based Election Model is straightforward. ... (more)
|