Federal Election Partisanship in 2000 and 2004
and Presidential Results in 1992-2000
KEY
Electoral College Votes
Winner Results Partisanship Partisan Indication (range)
1992 1996 2000 2000 2004  
Electoral College Rep 168 159 271 64 146 Republican (<44)
Dem 370 379 267 143 96 Lean Republican (45-48)
108 69 Toss Up (49-51)
167 59 Lean Democratic (52-55)
56 168 Democratic (>56)
Results Partisanship
State Electors 1992 1996 2000 2000 2004
Alabama 9 46.5 46.5 42   44 43
Alaska 3 45 41 32 34 34
Arizona 8 49.5 51.5 47 48 47
Arkansas 6 59 58.5 47 55 47
California 54 56.5 56.5 56 52 56
Colorado 8 52 49 45 45 45
Connecticut 8 53 59 59 54 58
District of Columbia 3 88 88 91 86 88
Delaware 3 54.5 57.5 57 53 56
Florida 25 49 53 50 49 50
Georgia 13 50 49.5 44 47 44
Hawaii 4 55.5 62.5 60 58 59
Idaho 4 43 41 29 35 30
Illinois 22 57.5 58.5 56 55 56
Indiana 12 47 47.5 42 43 42
Iowa 7 53 55 50 51 50
Kansas 6 47.5 41 39 37 39
Kentucky 8 52 50.5 42 47 42
Louisiana 9 52.5 56 46 53 46
Maine 4 54.5 60.5 53 53 52
Maryland 10 56.5 58 59 55 58
Massachusetts 12 59.5 66.5 65 62 63
Michigan 18 54 57 52 53 52
Minnesota 10 56 58 51 52 51
Mississippi 7 46 47.5 42 45 42
Missouri 11 55 53.5 48 49 48
Montana 3 51.5 48.5 37 42 38
Nebraska 5 41 40.5 34 36 35
Nevada 4 51 50.5 48 45 48
New Hampshire 4 50.5 55 49 50 50
New Jersey 15 51 59 58 55 57
New Mexico 5 54.5 54 50 50 50
New York 33 57.5 64 63 60 62
North Carolina 14 50 47.5 43 45 44
North Dakota 3 44 46.5 35 41 36
Ohio 21 51 53 48 48 48
Oklahoma 8 45.5 46.5 39 41 39
Oregon 7 55 54 50 48 50
Pennsylvania 23 54.5 54.5 52 50 52
Rhode Island 4 59 66.5 66 61 64
South Carolina 8 46 47 42 45 42
South Dakota 3 48 48.5 39 44 39
Tennessee 11 52.5 51 48 49 48
Texas 32 48 47.5 39 45 40
Utah 5 41 39.5 28 34 30
Vermont 3 58 61 55 54 54
Virginia 13 48 49 46 46 46
Washington 11 55.5 56.5 53 51 52
West Virginia 5 56.5 57.5 47 53 47
Wisconsin 11 52 55.5 50 50 50
Wyoming 3 47 43.5 30   38 30
Center for Voting and Democracy
www.fairvote.org
2000 Indication Produced August 2000
2004 Indication Produced Nov 2000
Final 2000 Florida result added Aug 2002
538 ##
64 # 108 167 # ##
Tallying EC votes for 2000, 2004 indications 2000 electoral college indication 2004 indication
2000 2004 R Lean R Tossup Lean D D R
Alabama 9 44 43 9 9
Alaska 3 34 34 3 3
Arizona 8 48 47 8
Arkansas 6 55 47 6
California 54 52 56 54
Colorado 8 45 45 8
Connecticut 8 54 58 8
District of Columbia 3 86 88 3
Delaware 3 53 56 3
Florida 25 49 50 25
Georgia 13 47 44 # 13
Hawaii 4 58 59 4
Idaho 4 35 30 4 4
Illinois 22 55 56 22
Indiana 12 43 42 12 12
Iowa 7 51 50 7
Kansas 6 37 39 6 6
Kentucky 8 47 42 8 8
Louisiana 9 53 46 9
Maine 4 53 52 4
Maryland 10 55 58 10
Massachusetts 12 62 63 #
Michigan 18 53 52 18
Minnesota 10 52 51 10
Mississippi 7 45 42 7 7
Missouri 11 49 48 11
Montana 3 42 38 3 3
Nebraska 5 36 35 5 5
Nevada 4 45 48 4
New Hampshire 4 50 50 4
New Jersey 15 55 57 15
New Mexico 5 50 50 5
New York 33 60 62 #
North Carolina 14 45 44 # 14
North Dakota 3 41 36 3 3
Ohio 21 48 48 #
Oklahoma 8 41 39 8 8
Oregon 7 48 50 7
Pennsylvania 23 50 52 23
Rhode Island 4 61 64 4
South Carolina 8 45 42 8 8
South Dakota 3 44 39 3 3
Tennessee 11 49 48 11
Texas 32 45 40 # 32
Utah 5 34 30 5 5
Vermont 3 54 54 3
Virginia 13 46 46 #
Washington 11 51 52 11
West Virginia 5 53 47 5
Wisconsin 11 50 50 11
Wyoming 3 38 30 3 3

ANALYSIS: Our analysis revealed that if there had been a dead-even national result in 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton still would have likely won. Under the Electoral College system, the presidential race is decided by state-by-state results, not the national vote, and after 1996, the Democratic vote was dispersed in such a way to give them a slight advantage in the Electoral College map. In 2000, however, it appears possible the Democrat Al Gore will lose the presidency despite narrowly winning the popular vote -- a shift from 1996 due primarily to the growth of the Democratic vote in California and New York.

At this point, neither party gains an edge because of the Electoral College. The fact that Republicans gain a boost because of winning more of the small states is balanced by the Democrats' edge in most of the large states In 2004, then, a dead-even vote in the national vote would once again likely be reflected by a very close finish in the Electoral vote, dependent on who wins a handful of close races.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers under "partisan indication" for 2000 were based on what would have happened in an even national vote in 1996. The number was generated by a simple calculation. Bill Clinton won 49% of the popular vote in 1996 (compared to Bob Dole's 40%). If Clinton won 51% in a given state, then, his performance in that state was 2% above his national average. If the national race had been dead-even, we assume that this state would have given Clinton 52% of the two-party vote (two percent above a 50%-50% national two-party divide). Note that this method of predicting elections has proven quite reliable in U.S. House elections, particularly in open seat races. [See Monopoly Politics]

For 2004, we have chosen to use the relative two-party vote as our basis of defining partisan indications rather than the actual vote. Doing so for 2000 would have slightly improved our accuracy and is a way to equalize the impact of third party candidates, who often have different rates of success in different states. Given that the 2000 presidential race in fact was dead-even, the partisan indication for 2004 is a simple calculation of the two-party vote from the 2000 election