Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pivotal states in the Electoral College, 1880 to 2004

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical measure of pivoting in the electoral college from 1880 to 2004. The measure derives from established theoretical concepts of power and pivoting first introduced by Shapley and Shubik (Am. Political Sci. Rev. 84:787–792, 1954). Pivotal states identified by this approach generally conform to popular interpretations—Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, and so forth—but, historically, pivotal states are also frequently small or medium-sized states. Also, pivotal states by this approach are not necessarily competitive states. In general, whether or not a state is pivotal is mainly a function of its size and bellwether tendency—i.e., its tendency to mirror the national voting trend. A state’s pivot position is also an excellent predictor of how presidential candidates allocated time and money across states in the general elections of 2000 and 2004. Controlling for a state’s pivot position, size and electoral competitiveness have little effect on the allocation of campaign resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adkins, R. E., & Kirwin, K. A. (2002). What role does the ‘federalism bonus’ play in presidential selection? Publius, 32, 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf, J. F., III. (1965). Weighted voting doesn’t work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review, 19(2), 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf, J. F., III. (1968). One man, 3.312 votes: a mathematical analysis of the Electoral College. Villanova Law Review, 13, 303–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. (1973). Resource allocation models in presidential campaigning: implications for democratic representations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 219, 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. (1974). The 3/2’s rule in presidential campaigning. American Political Science Review, 68(1), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, K. A., & Cheezum, E. A. (2003). Woodrow Wilson. Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colantoni, C. S., Levesque, T. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1975). Campaign resource allocations under the Electoral College. American Political Science Review, 69, 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G. C., III. (2004). Why the Electoral College is bad for America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., King, G., & Boscardin, W. J. (1998). Estimating the probability of events that have never occurred: when is your vote decisive? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(441), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., Katz, J. N., & Bafumi, J. (2004). Standard voting power indexes do not work: an empirical analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, I. J., & Mayer, L. S. (1975). Estimating the efficacy of a vote. Behavioral Science, 20, 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. J. (2005). Identities of competitive states in U.S. presidential elections: electoral college bias or candidate-centered politics. Publius, 35, 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. J., Jr. (2002). Who will be in the White House? Predicting presidential elections. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longley, L. D. (1975). The politics of Electoral College reform (2nd ed.) New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longley, L. D., & Dana, J. D., Jr. (1984). New empirical estimates of the biases of the Electoral College for the 1980s. Western Political Quarterly, 37(1), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longley, L. D., & Dana, J. D., Jr. (1992). The biases of the Electoral College in the 1990s. Polity, 25, 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longley, L. D., & Pierce, N. R. (1999). The Electoral College primer 2000. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, I., & Shapley, L. S. (1960). Values of large games, VI: Evaluating the Electoral College by Monte Carlo techniques. The Rand Corporation, Memorandum RM-2651.

  • Mann, I., & Shapley, L. S. (1962). Values of large games, VI: Evaluating the Electoral College exactly. The Rand Corporation, Memorandum RM-3158-PR.

  • Margolis, H. (1977). The probability of a tie vote. Public Choice, 31, 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, H. (1983). The Banzhaf fallacy. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1975). Evaluation of a presidential election game. American Political Science Review, 69, 947–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, T. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, L. S. (1946). The elementary statistics of majority voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 109(1), 53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N. W., & Wildavsky, A. (1996). Presidential elections: strategies and structures in American politics (9th ed.) Chatham: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, G., & McDonald, S. E. (1986). The power of the states in U.S. presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 80(1), 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1973). An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H., & Shapley, L. S. (1966). Weighted voting: a mathematical analysis for instrumental judgments. Manuscript, The Rand Corporation.

  • Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for n-person games. In H. W. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games II (Annals of Mathematics Studies 28). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L. S., & Shubik, M. (1954). A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review, 48, 787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D. R. (2006). The race to 270. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R. A. N., & Squire, P. (1987). Direct election of the president and the power of the states. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R., & Sun, R. A. (1975). Are there bellwether electoral districts? Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (1973). Pivotal states in the Electoral College: An empirical examination. In L. Papayanopoulos (Ed.), Democratic representation and apportionment: quantitative methods, measures, and criteria. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, R. E., Jr. (1988). The presidencies of Grover Cleveland. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, T. H. (1961). The making of the president 1960. New York: Atheneum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    John R. Wright

Authors
  1. John R. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Wright.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wright, J.R. Pivotal states in the Electoral College, 1880 to 2004. Public Choice 139, 21–37 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9374-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9374-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation