Skip to content

Comparison of Voting Patterns With Population Growth: Why Hillary Lost

2016-11-30

dscn1373a

As noted yesterday, it would be potentially productive to examine the relationship between population growth and changes in voting numbers.  Here are the totals for the thirteen swing states presented in the voting totals on the google document mentioned yesterday.

The increase in total votes in the US compares well with population growth:  total votes went up 4.5% between 2012 and 2016, and the population grew by an estimated 4.1% between 2010 and 2015.

Here are the numbers for the thirteen swing states:

Arizona: votes went up 12.1%; population grew 6.82%.   Democrats lost by 3.5%, a shift of 5.5%.

Florida: votes went up 11.2%; population grew 7.82%.  Democrats lost by 1.2%, a shift of -2.1%.

Colorado: the votes went up 8.2%; population grew 8.5%.  Democrats won by 4.9%, a shift of -0.5%.

Iowa: votes went Down -1.0%; population grew 2.55%. Democrats lost by -9.4%, a shift of -15.2%.

Maine: votes went up by 3.9%; population grew 0.07%. Democrats won by  2.7%, a shift of -12.6%.

Michigan: votes went up 1.4%; population grew 0.39%. Democrats lost by -0.2%, a shift of -9.7%.

Minnesota: votes went up 0.3%; population grew 3.5%. Democrats won by 1.5%, a shift of -6.2%.

Nevada: votes went up 10.9%; population grew 7.5%.  Democrats won by 2.4%, a shift of -4.3%.

New Hampshire: votes went up 4.7%; population grew 1.07%. Democrats won by 0.4%, a shift of -5.2%.

North Carolina: votes went up 5.2%; population grew 5.32%.  Democrats lost by -3.7%, a shift of -1.6%.

Ohio: votes went down -2.0%; population grew 0.67%.  Democrats lost by -8.0%, a shift of -11.0%.

Pennsylvania: votes went up 5.3%; population grew 0.79%.  Democrats lost by -1.1%, a shift of -6.4%.

Wisconsin: votes went down -3.0%; population grew 1.48%.  Democrats lost by -0.7%, a shift of -7.7%.

We see that Hillary lost votes in every swing state except Arizona, but some states showed dramatic losses of ten percent or more, like Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio.  Hillary lost Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio, but won Maine, a state in which Obama won by a landslide of 15%.  Hillary also lost Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and showed large percentage losses over Obama, -6.4 and -7.7%.

Hillary’s percentage increase in Arizona could be attributed to the unpopularity of Republicans in that state with Hispanics, who made up a large percentage of the large population increase, which was doubled in the vote increase.

Voting numbers went down in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, all states that Hillary lost.  For voting numbers to actually go down, there had to voter suppression or disenchantment, both distinct possibilities which could be distinguished by studying impressions of voters in those states.

Voting numbers increased out of proportion to population growth in Arizona, Florida, and Nevada, all states in which many Hispanics were registered and which showed large growth in Hispanic populations.  Hillary lost Arizona and Florida, but won Nevada.

These numbers show possible pre-poll problems with Hillary’s campaign.  The only states that might have had problems in the polling booth itself were those where Hillary lost ten percent or more compared to Obama’s voting.  We can’t be suspicious of cheating at the ballot box based on these numbers, although the states that showed voting numbers going down suggest some type of problem– those states happen to account for enough electoral votes to swing the election.

No-one can say, based on potential scenarios, whether there was cheating in the ballot boxes without reviewing paper ballot comparisons to electronic voting tallies, because there are several ways in which cheating could be done in an undetectable fashion.  The completely disastrous nature of Donald’s win at the electoral college makes it potentially useful to reverse the conclusion by spending enough money to pay for recounts in the most problematic states.  Unfortunately, the recount attempt appears to be centering on two other states in which the totals were extremely close.

Objective analysis could account for Donald’s win by describing it as a function of the voter’s exposure to Donald’s Hitler-like speaking style, especially by such widely watched television stations as CNN– as described in yesterday’s post about John Oliver’s video.  Voters were essentially mesmerized by this exposure, and became uninterested in later attempts to expose them to the truth about Donald because they were emotionally attached to him.

Hillary failed to efficiently counter this emotional attachment to Donald because she was excessively detached from direct campaigning.  In fact, it was said that she never appeared in person in Michigan during the campaign.  Michigan could be said to represent the problem in microcosm: there is the city of Detroit, a black-majority population center which has actually become depopulated as a result of the loss of manufacturing jobs which supported black residents followed by a loss of all city services and bankruptcy.  Black voters could have won the state for Hillary if they had been mobilized and motivated to vote, but that didn’t happen enough.

The city of Flint represented the loss of security in government because of the poisoning of its water by attempts to save money on supply; this disaster could have worked in Hillary’s favor if she had come out on the side of the people of Flint and visited the city in person to gain sympathy.  However, that didn’t happen and she lost Michigan as well as the nation as a whole.

The conclusion is that recounts will probably not show that there was cheating in the ballot box and it is unlikely that they will change the results of the election, especially if the three states that had decreased voting are not examined. Donald’s unlikely (but mathematically possible at a third of the odds according to Nate Silver) win is explained by his hypnotizing speeches aired to low information voters early in the campaign without sufficient factual confrontation at those early stages.  This is an argument for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, which was destroyed by the Republicans years ago, in 1987.  The lack of adequate time and space for factual rebuttal of emotional but untruthful claims has caused no end of trouble.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: