The Statistical Significance of Sandy Could Alter Electoral, Popular-Vote Math

[Draggingtree]

National Journal:

 

The Statistical Significance of Sandy Could Alter Electoral, Popular-Vote Math

By Major Garrett

Updated: October 30, 2012 | 5:58 p.m.

October 30, 2012 | 3:10 p.m

One of more absurd notions to crop up in the latter stages of the presidential campaign is that GOP challenger Mitt Romney could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College vote.

Until Hurricane Sandy, this was a cable TV notion in search of historical and mathematical mooring. That it bobbed aimlessly through the occasionally mindless waters of talking heads made it no different from any other might-this-happen adventure in televised banality.

But think about it for just two seconds.

The concept is built on the theory that Romney could run up the vote in Southern and high Plains states and get close enough to Obama in the swing states to win the popular vote but fall just short of the magic 270 Electoral College number for victory.

I know from where this myopia springs. It would be hard in this campaign to remember that California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York are still part of the Union and their votes count. We remember Massachusetts only because Romney's headquarters is there. But we forget about it entirely in the context of this Romney-wins-the-popular-vote-only lunacy.

Consider this simple demonstration of