Florida and Michigan: Numbers Can Make Your Head Explode

I'm not a statistician. I don't even play one on TV. But I like to think I have some basic logic skills that I can apply when looking at statistical studies.

So I read a study earlier that took a ratio of A to B from a group and compared it to ratios of A to B from other groups. Then when the first ratio was shown to be out of line, the authors concluded that it was due to A. My concern was that it seemed to me, that the problem could equally be with B.

Simply stated, if A/B = a number that you don't expect, then either A or B could be the problem.

This diary from earlier today does just that. They are looking at Florida and Michigan vote totals to determine if the voter turnout was suppressed and how many Dem voters should have turned out.

They didn't include the data so I have found some myself. I went to each state site and used their data. Also, if you look at their pdf you will see that there are around 36 dots on their graph. Since Florida is a closed primary state I looked only at other closed primary states (I used the CNN site to see which states had closed primaries).

Democratic Turnout

Connecticut    51.09%
Maryland    50.71%
Arizona         50.47%
District of Columbia    44.48%
Florida         42.30%
Oklahoma    41.20%
Deleware    37.59%
New York    35.44%
New Mexico    28.42%
Louisiana    25.66%

----

Republican Turnout

Arizona         51.98%
Florida         50.96%
Oklahoma    42.37%
Connecticut    36.74%
Maryland    36.08%
Deleware    28.01%
Louisiana    22.96%
New York    22.35%
District of Columbia    22.08%
New Mexico    June 3rd

Looking closer at those numbers:

Average Dem Turnout 40.74%
Median Dem Turnout 41.75%
Florida Dem Turnout 42.30%

Average Repub Turnout 34.84%
Median Repub Turnout 36.08%
Florida Repub Turnout 50.96%

So while the Florida Dem turnout was slightly better than average, the Florida Repub turnout was much better than average. In fact, the only state that had a higher Repub turnout was Arizona, McCain's state.

Most people have been looking at the ratio of the Dem turnout to the Repub turnout. So here that is.

New Mexico    No Repub Yet
District of Columbia    2.01
New York    1.59
Maryland    1.41
Connecticut    1.39
Deleware    1.34
Louisiana    1.12
Oklahoma    0.97
Arizona         0.97
Florida         0.83

No doubt that Florida number is the lowest. But is it the lowest due to Dem voter turnout or Repub voter turnout? The easiest explanation, because it is what most people expect, is that it is due to suppressed Dem voter turnout. The authors of the study thought that. In fact they went further.

They compared the primary voter turnouts to 2004 Presidential votes in oder to calculate the missing voters from Florida and Michigan. And they came up with:

Democratic voters should have numbered 2.85 million and 1.305 million in Florida and Michigan, respectively. Given actual numbers of 1.7 million and 590,000, an estimated 1.15 million Floridians and 715,000 Michiganders stayed home on primary day, who otherwise would have voted had they behaved like voters in other states.

They believe 2.85 million Florida Democratic voters should have turned out to vote. That's a lot of voters. In fact that is a 68.89% voter turnout.

Let's look at that with the other closed primary states.
Average Dem Turnout 40.74%
Median Dem Turnout 41.75%
Actual Florida Dem Turnout 42.30%
Projected Florida Dem Turnout based on Repub Turnout 68.89%

That would put Florida way ahead of every other closed primary state. The next closest would be Connecticut with 51.09%. Does this seem reasonable? For a primary?

Now does that prove there was no voter suppression? Of course not. But it doesn't prove there was either. At least to my non-statistical mind.



Display:


Awesome diary! (none / 0)

I've been thinking about this a lot lately but never bothered to put the numbers together in this fashion.

It's always seemed to me that at the very least Florida was a free and fair election, aside from the rules violation.

It would really surprise me if there were better turnout in any revote that might take place.

That being said, I think that Florida should either count as is, or not count at all, with both being potentially nuclear options.

Nuclear or otherwise though, is it really worth another $30M for revotes in Florida and Michigan when taxpayers in those states already footed the bill for elections.

This just proves that the Democratic Party should have taken the States' positions that the Iowa and New Hampshire love fests are unreasonable and unfair.  It took a protracted Democratic contest that will likely see all States and territories vote before a nominee is chosen to figure it out!

Thanks for the analysis!


by jaydub799 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:43:11 PM EST

Re: Awesome diary! (none / 0)

You're welcome. And thanks for reading the diary!


If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.
by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida and Michigan: Numbers Can Make Your He (none / 0)

Statistics are a way to make anything you want to prove seem like the case.  For example, you could say that only 51% of the democratic party is supporting Clinton, and you would be right, or you could say that over half of the democratic party is supporting Clinton, which is also true, or you could say that almost half of the democratic party is not supporting her.

You could make it seem that in Mich 45% of the voters preferred non-committed instead of Clinton, but you could also say that all the other candidates took their name off the ballot voluntarily, so that 55% of all the votes were for Clinton.  It just depends on the way you want to "spin" the numbers.  They do this kind of slanted fake news on all the stations in their cheap promotion of Obama and their distortion of Clinton, but the biggest problem with them is that after a while, people, even the dumbest of people begin to see what they are actually doing.  Then it becomes a whole lot less effective.  Make fun of the reporters and their fawning over their chosen ONE Obama and you have the makings of a comeback and possibly a mutiny of the base of the democratic party.  These voters are getting offended by this unfair and distorted lies that the media has attempted to do, but of course, the most important thing that happens is , we just begin to turn off the tv.  That is what really steams them the most, they begin to only have those viewers that already agree with them, the rest of us have already signed off, and are paying no attention to them.  

As a matter of fact women are flocking to Clinton because of this distorted and ugly attack by the press, and especially these political hacks, who know nothing when it really comes to politics and merely spout the line told to them by their bosses.  Obama will get the treatment for now, until, he has secured the nomination, then the take down will begin.  Their bosses want a republican administration so that they can continue to ride the gravy train for the privileged few while the rest of us do without.  Without jobs, without health care, without a meaningful chance at a better life because they have stolen our future from us.  

Of course, if they get Obama they think they can keep this guy in line, and they are probably right.  Obama hopes to use his ethnic group by threatening that they may riot if he doesn't get his way, but I doubt it will make a damned bit of difference to these guys anyway, they know they can take him down whenever they chose to.  

The biggest problem they have had is that no matter what they try to do to Clinton she just keeps getting the support of the base of the party.  That's pretty embarrassing for the party bosses when they are busy trying to return power to the far left elites with the use of Obama.  Sorry but if they succeed, they will cause this party to once again lose the WH.  They have misplaced priorities.  They will learn a sad and repeat lesson, that even a power hungry and charismatic cult leader cannot replace the votes of the base of the democratic party, these other voters can not deliver the WH to them.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:50:48 PM EST

Re: Florida and Michigan (none / 0)

When you're trying to explain the Republican turout, please don't leave out the fact that Florida was expected to be absolutely decisive in the Republican race, and it fact turned out to be so.  After McCain's narrow victory over Romney in Florida, there was never a race again.  Another 5% for Romney, and that thing could still be going on.


by Trickster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:44:41 PM EST

Re: Florida and Michigan (none / 0)

I didn't offer any explanations for the high Florida Republican turnout because I didn't want to muddy the waters. I really wanted to concentrate on the fact that the study made an assumption at the beginning instead of really looking at the numbers. That assumption being that if more Repubs turned out than Dem it had to because of low Dem turnout.

But I think Guiliani dropped out after Florida and Romney didn't drop out until after the Feb 5th states voted.


If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.
by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.