Bookmark and Share

Scientists pick their President

A revealing look at The Scientist's mock election results


[Published 20th October 2008 07:12 PM GMT]



If scientists ruled the world, then the world would be extremely blue. Mind you not blue as in its mood, but blue as in its political party affiliation. The Scientist's recent mock election showed a clear trend towards Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee. Barack Obama carried a staggering 56% of the total votes while his Republican counterpart, John McCain, only received 39% of the total votes. This is a margin of 17% which is statistically significant.

Article continues below

Replacement content

Get macromedia Flash Player

Barack Obama
Democratic Party
John McCain
Republican Party
Bob Barr
Libertarian Party
Ralph Nader
Independent Party


As most Americans know all too well, the popular vote doesn't determine the winner of the presidential election. Al Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the election due to electoral votes. (For more details Google: +Florida +2000 +"hanging chads"). So if The Scientist wanted to determine a "true" presidential winner, then The Scientist would have to breakdown the voting by state in an attempt to calculate the electoral votes. Using Google Analytics to determine state locations of our voters, The Scientist found that Barack Obama would carry a whopping 464 electoral votes (the most since Ronald Reagan1) and that's not even including the 45 votes still up for grabs.

Article continues below




This feature requires that JavaScript be enabled and the Flash plug-in be installed.


As if the US votes weren't bad enough for John McCain, it turns out that he isn't very well liked outside of the US either. Barack Obama won the international vote winning 86.2% of the total votes compared to 6.9% that John McCain received. A large number of Obama supporters were from Canada, the UK, Italy and Australia. McCain had some support in Brazil, Belgium, and France but not enough to win the international popular vote. John McCain almost lost the international vote to Ralph Nader, who happened to score votes in Canada.

CandidatePct of Total International Votes
Barack Obama86.2%
John McCain6.9%
Ralph Nader6.0%
Bob Barr0.9%


Continuing the concept of "If scientists ruled the world", The Scientist ran a mock election of some of the top biologists to see which biologist would win the popular vote. This race was actually quite close with many lead changes throughout. In the end Craig Venter won a close race against his fellow scientists Stanley Falkow, Rita Colwell, EO Wilson and others. Congratulations on the victory Craig Venter - the next 4 years are all yours!


Replacement content

Get macromedia Flash Player


1. "Presidential Elections, 1789-2004" Infoplease.© 2000-2008 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease.16 Oct. 2008.



Advertisement

 

Rate this article

Rating: 3.76/5 (33 votes )





Have additional details?
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-10-28 10:10:26]
Out of all who participated, how many actually can and will vote on Nov 4th? Sometimes it seems that outside of The Scientist, our concerns are unacknowledged, because many of us still have no voice in our national government.



Let us not rehash earlier elections
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-10-22 13:52:41]
It is not surprising that scientists chose Obama, as McCain's declared "maverick" philosophy does not rely on making decisions by a dispassionate consideration of all the facts at hand. This is strikingly evident in his selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. We have had eight years of selective vision - viewing only that information that supports a political philosophy and ignoring competing information. Scientists may disagree on values, but we are well versed in data evaluation.



Two very surprising states
by DAVID FRITZINGER

[Comment posted 2008-10-21 13:52:00]
Looking at the map, I found the results in 2 states to be very surprising. First, that Delaware would go Republican, since Delaware usually goes Democratic. Must be the large number of people working for big Pharma and chemical firms there. The second shock is that Utah would go for Obama, if scientists vote. Utah is probably the most red of all red states, and among the total population, will probably go for McCain by a margin of >20%.



2000 election
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-10-21 13:01:42]
Actually Al Gore lost Florida. The state has a law requiring ratification of votes by a certain date. Florida lawmakers tried to override that law. The decision by the Supreme Court was to limit recounts. There were 17 (at least) before the recounts were stopped by this decision and ALL showed Bush won. What did the Democrats want? Just count and recount until they got the result they desired? As it was, those doing the recounts were reading the voter's minds as they assigned votes to Gore based on 'hanging chads' saying that they KNEW the voter meant the vote for Gore. This is the argument they used for 'dimpled' ballots too.



Clarification
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-10-21 08:50:48]
"Al Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the election due to electoral votes. (For more details Google: +Florida +2000 +"hanging chads")."

Actually, Gore lost due to a decision by 5 members of the Supreme Court. The electoral votes would have favored Gore most probably if they had been counted.



The News


Front Cover

Register for FREE Online Access

  • »Current issue
  • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
  • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

Register »

Subscribe to the Magazine

  • »Monthly print issues
  • »Unlimited online access
  • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

Subscribe »

Library Subscriptions
Recommend to a Librarian

Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
© 1986-2012 The Scientist