IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/26247.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Geruso
  • Dean Spears
  • Ishaana Talesara

Abstract

Inversions—in which the popular vote winner loses the election—have occurred in four US presidential races. We show that rather than being statistical flukes, inversions have been ex ante likely since the early 1800s. In elections yielding a popular vote margin within one point (one-eighth of presidential elections), about 40% will be inversions in expectation. We show this conditional probability is remarkably stable across historical periods—despite differences in which groups voted, which states existed, and which parties participated. Our findings imply that the US has experienced so few inversions merely because there have been so few elections (and fewer close elections).

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Geruso & Dean Spears & Ishaana Talesara, 2019. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016," NBER Working Papers 26247, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26247
    Note: PE POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26247.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Ball, William J & Leuthold, David A, 1991. "Estimating the Likelihood of an Unpopular Verdict in the Electoral College," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 215-224, May.
    3. Olivier Mouzon & Thibault Laurent & Michel Le Breton & Dominique Lepelley, 2020. "The theoretical Shapley–Shubik probability of an election inversion in a toy symmetric version of the US presidential electoral system," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 363-395, March.
    4. Matthew Gentzkow & Nathan Petek & Jesse M. Shapiro & Michael Sinkinson, 2015. "Do Newspapers Serve The State? Incumbent Party Influence On The Us Press, 1869–1928," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 29-61, February.
    5. Roland G. Fryer Jr. & Richard Holden, 2011. "Measuring the Compactness of Political Districting Plans," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(3), pages 493-535.
    6. Vogl, Tom S., 2014. "Race and the politics of close elections," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 101-113.
    7. Thomas A. C. & Gelman Andrew & King Gary & Katz Jonathan N., 2013. "Estimating Partisan Bias of the Electoral College Under Proposed Changes in Elector Apportionment," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Andrew Gelman & Nate Silver & Aaron Edlin, 2012. "What Is The Probability Your Vote Will Make A Difference?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 321-326, April.
    9. Olivier Mouzon & Thibault Laurent & Michel Breton & Dominique Lepelley, 2019. "Exploring the effects of national and regional popular vote Interstate compact on a toy symmetric version of the Electoral College: an electoral engineering perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 51-95, April.
    10. Ilyana Kuziemko & Ebonya Washington, 2018. "Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(10), pages 2830-2867, October.
    11. Owen, Guillermo, 1975. "Evaluation of a Presidential Election Game," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 947-953, September.
    12. Jonathan R. Cervas & Bernard Grofman, 2019. "Are Presidential Inversions Inevitable? Comparing Eight Counterfactual Rules for Electing the U.S. President," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1322-1342, June.
    13. Douglas Blair, 1979. "Electoral College reform and the distribution of voting power," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 201-215, June.
    14. Pradeep Dubey & Lloyd S. Shapley, 1979. "Mathematical Properties of the Banzhaf Power Index," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 99-131, May.
    15. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    16. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    17. Samuel Merrill, 1978. "Empirical estimates for the likelihood of a divided verdict in a presidental election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 127-133, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Geruso & Dean Spears & Ishaana Talesara, 2022. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836–2016," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 327-357, January.
    2. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Donati, Dante, 2023. "Mobile Internet access and political outcomes: Evidence from South Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Ryan Kendall, 2017. "Aligning Democracy: A Comment on Bruno S. Frey’s “Proposals for a Democracy of the Future”," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 243-251, November.
    5. Gallo, E. & Langtry, A., 2020. "Social Networks, Confirmation Bias and Shock Elections," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2099, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Balart, Pau & Casas, Agustin & Troumpounis, Orestis, 2022. "Technological change, campaign spending and polarization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    7. Olivier Mouzon & Thibault Laurent & Michel Breton & Dominique Lepelley, 2019. "Exploring the effects of national and regional popular vote Interstate compact on a toy symmetric version of the Electoral College: an electoral engineering perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 51-95, April.
    8. Li, Anqi & Hu, Lin, 2023. "Electoral accountability and selection with personalized information aggregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 296-315.
    9. Craig Palsson, 2022. "The medium‐run effects of a foreign election intervention: Haiti's presidential elections, 2010–2015," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(2), pages 369-390, April.
    10. Edoardo Gallo & Alastair Langtry, 2020. "Social networks, confirmation bias and shock elections," Papers 2011.00520, arXiv.org.
    11. Bruno Carvalho & Claudia Custodio & Benny Geys & Diogo Mendes & Susana Peralta, 2020. "Information, Perceptions, and Electoral Behaviour of Young Voters: A Randomised Controlled Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2020-14, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. James Rockey & Nadia Zakir, 2021. "Power and the money, money and the power: A network analysis of donations from American corporate to political leaders," Discussion Papers 21-03, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    13. Isabel Musse & Rodrigo Schneider, 2023. "The effect of presidential election outcomes on alcohol drinking," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 146-162, March.
    14. Miura, Shintaro, 2019. "Manipulated news model: Electoral competition and mass media," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 306-338.
    15. Julia Cage & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2017. "The Production of Information in an Online World: Is Copy Right?," Working Papers hal-03393171, HAL.
    16. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    17. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    19. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    20. Fathey Mohammed & Nabil Hasan Al-Kumaim & Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & Yousef Fazea, 2023. "The Impact of Social Media Shared Health Content on Protective Behavior against COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • K16 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Election Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.