Race 2004

Race2004 FAQ

What is this site?: Race2004 is a personal hobby site dedicated to tracking statewide presidential campaign polls in an effort to project the eventual winner of the 2004 American presidential race. I also post interesting news stories related to the race.
Is this site affiliated with a political party?: No. I am a Democrat with a liberal bent, but the analysis of our polls is as impartial as I can make it. I acknowledge that the news stories we cover are often liberal in nature, but the political analyses should be taken as mostly impartial. Whatever bias in the analyses is getting through is unconscious on my part.
When is the election?: The election is November 2, 2004.
How can I register to vote?: Just follow the instructions on this form created by the Federal Elections Commission. Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view it. (Download it for free at www.adobe.com if you need it).
Who are the candidates?: There are many candidates running for president. The two major candidates are George Bush (Republican Party) and John Kerry (Democratic Party). Ralph Nader (Reform Party) is the most popular of the minor candidates. Other minor candidates include David Cobb (Green Party), Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Michael Badnarik (Liberterian Party).
How are electoral votes decided?: Each state (plus the District of Columbia) receives a number of electoral votes equal to their number of representatives in the US Congress with a minimum of three votes. Each state's delegates are chosen by the campaign of the the candidate that receives the most number of popular votes within each state in a "winner-take-all" contest. Nebraska, Maine, and possibly Colorado are notable exceptions. This makes a total of 538 electors. The remaining US territories receive no electoral votes.
How do Nebraska and Maine select their electors?: The overall winner of each state receives two votes. The winner within each Congressional district receives and additional vote. In the entire history of the United States, neither state has ever split its electors among two candidates. It is unlikely (but possible) that either state will split their vote in 2004.
How does Colorado select its electors?: Currently it assigns its electors like most other states do. However, the Colorado Initiative for Electoral Reform will appear on the ballot this November. If passed, the state will assign its electors based on the percentage of votes received by each candidate. The reform will take effect beginning with the current election. Under the new system (and current polling trends), the state will split its vote 4-4 among Bush and Kerry, with both vying for the remaining vote. Had this proposal been law in 2000 Al Gore would have been elected president.
Who exactly are the electors?: Anyone can be an elector. The Constitution spells out no age, citizenship, or residency requirements. Electors may not hold a federal public office, but otherwise have no restrictions. Traditionally electoral positions are handed out by political parties as rewards to donors, activists, candidates, and the like. The winning political party's electors are then certified by the state. (Feel free to clarify this if I am missing anything. My explanation here strikes me as a bit vague, but I believe that's because it's such an open-ended process).
Where and how are electoral votes cast?: The electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December (this year: December 13) in each of the state capitals. The votes are then delivered by each state Secretary of State to the President of the Senate where they are opened and tallied before a joint session of the US Congress. The candidate who receives an absolute majority (50% + 1) of votes is elected President. The Vice-president is elected in an identical fashion.
Can an elector change his vote?: An elector cannot change his or her vote after it is cast on December 13. However, the elector is not bound to vote for whom the candidate that won in that state. Several states have tried to outlaw vote changing by "faithless electors", but the framers of the Constitution intended to allow electors to change their votes as an expression of the independence of the electorate. Electors have changed their presidential votes or abstained four times in US history, most recently in 2000 when an elector from Washington, DC abstained to protest the lack of DC's voting representation in the Congress. (One source cites a higher number, but I believe they are including Vice-presidential votes. Any archaic historians out there know the scoop on this?)

Interestingly, we may be facing a "faithless elector" in 2004 if George Bush wins West Virginia. South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb was named as a Republican elector earlier this summer, but in recent days he has threatened to withhold his vote from George Bush to protest the war in Iraq. He says it is unlikely that he will vote for John Kerry, but may abstain.
What is the "favorite son" prohibition?: To prevent a state from receiving undue influence, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution requires that electors cast at least one of their votes for President or Vice-President for someone outside their state. In practice, this is not a problem as a potential conflict is normally resolved in advance. Cheney, for example, switched his residence from Texas to Wyoming prior to the 2000 election.
What happens if no candidate has an absolute majority (50% + 1) of electoral votes?: This could happen if a third candidate receives several electoral votes, or if there is a tie. Assuming one or more electors do not change their vote, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution dictates that the matter is sent to the US House of Representatives. Each delegation receives one vote and must vote amongst themselves regarding for whom they will cast their vote. A tie within a delegation means no vote is cast. Half plus one (26) votes are necessary to win. (This last happened in 1824. Of four major candidates Andrew Jackson led in the popular and electoral votes. The House, however, selected John Quincy Adams as the president. Andrew Jackson fumed publicly about this until he won the presidency in 1824.)

If the Electoral College ties on the matter of the Vice-President, the matter is sent to the Senate where the Vice-President is selected through a simple majority vote. (This happened in 1836 when 23 electors switched their votes away from Martin Van Buren's unpopular running mate, Richard Johnson. The matter went to the Senate where Johnson was later confirmed).
What happens if the popular vote is for one candidate, but the electoral vote is for another?: The winner of the electoral vote becomes the president. This has happened several in American history. Most recently was in 2000 when Al Gore received more votes than George Bush.
Why is George Bush doing better when Nader is not on the ballot?: Conventional wisdom suggests Nader's presence on a ballot drains twice as many votes from Kerry as it does from Bush. While this may be true, keep in mind that these projections are often made with differently phrased questions from different companies on different dates with different samples recruited by different media. There is also a certain amount of randomness that crops up in any poll due to the margin of error. As such, it's not surprising that once in a while conventional wisdom takes a back seat to the limitations of political polling.
What is your methodology for projecting the winner of a state?: The answer is somewhat complicated. Please see our methodology section.
If a new poll says a candidate is winning, why did the state shift in the direction of the other candidate?: In general, we base the support of a state (strong Kerry, weak Kerry, undecided, weak Bush, strong Bush) upon the average of three recent polls. When a new poll is released, the oldest poll is removed from the average and the new one is factored in. Depending on the differences in the newest and oldest polls, the state may shift in the direction of either candidate. See our methodology page for more information.
Bush is winning the recent polls, but Kerry wins the state. Why?: This happens on rare occasions in extremely closely challenged states. It is because our projections in the "if the election were held today" scenario also factor in the undecided vote. Traditionally (82% of the time), 2/3 of undecided voters break for the challenger. This is because elections in which there is a popular incumbent are seen as a referendum on his performance. If the incumbent cannot convince undecided voters why he should be reelected, they usually decide to vote against him. As a result, Kerry receives a slight boost in the poll depending on what percent of the vote was undecided.

If this makes an actual difference in who wins the state, a note of explanation appears on the state page under "if the election were held today".
With all this in mind, how can you draw any results from such an unscientific process?: Polling and projection have their limitations so you cannot draw results from a single poll. You can, however, look for common trends occuring across multiple polls. In those trends you may be able to draw a fairly accurate picture of the electoral race.
What do the following terms mean?

Race 2004.net

Tracking America's presidential campaign polls

Race2004 FAQ