An Algorithm for Determining the Winners of U.S. Presidential Elections

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. Our algorithm predicts that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney will win the 2004 election unless:

1) the Democratic nominee for President is Howard B. Dean,

2) the Democratic nominee for President is Wesley K. Clark and the Democratic nominee for Vice President has been Vice President for at least two years, a governor for at least five years, or a U.S. Representative for at least five years,

3) the Democratic nominee for President is Richard A. Gephardt and the Democratic nominee for Vice President is a banker, a college or university chancellor or president, or the child of a U.S. Senator, or

4) the Democratic nominee for Vice President is Albert A. Gore, Jr. or John D. Rockefeller, IV, and the Democratic nominee for President has not been divorced, has not been a special prosecutor, and is a Protestant, Deist, or Catholic.

Although any of the currently declared Democratic candidates for President could, in theory, win in 2004 if they carefully choose their vice presidential candidates, in practice it would be difficult for many of them to find candidates for Vice President with the right combination of governmental and non-governmental experience.

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/Elections.htm

someone told me it wasn't true...anybody else heard that?

The math assumes Dimbo was elected and not appointed by SCOTUS after the engineered election results in Florida.

I would take them with a grain of salt.

I was just posting it for discussion.

no problem :-)

Poltical scientists made a number of "forecasting models" in 2000 that forecast a comfortable win for Al Gore (yes, I know, he won, but only barely). They used a combination of variables, depending on which scientist it was: GDP, voters perceptions of their personal finances, presidential approval and the Labor Day poll of the nominees. They all blew it big time and embarassed their professions. I guess these people seem to think that campaigns don't matter or that third parties are irrelevant.

at least whether or not there is a notable 3rd party candidate in the race.

they also somewhat incorporate campaigns, at least in the sense that they usually consider the presence of a scandal.

the models all suffer from the data-mining fallacy. just because you found a combination of variables that now predicts past elections doesn't mean it necessarily is a good predictor for future elections. having said that, most models consider quite plausible factors.

imho, the one cited in this thread places way too much emphasis on the vp choice. personally, i think that is nearly irrelevant, barring a scandalous choice.

Look at the "Humor in Science Webring" link box at the bottom of the menu pages.

Check it out: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/

--bkl